The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties and the absence of societal interest, as guided by the judgments of Narinder Singh & Ors. and Gian Singh.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order dated 23.10.2017 passed in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 13 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1810 of 2016 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih whereby the learned court has been pleased to allow the prayer made by the Investigating Officer of the present case under section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C., pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

3. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was relation between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 and subsequently, the O.P. No. 2 solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 11.01.2016 and further it transpired that the informant is already married earlier and she has filed maintenance case against the person with whom she was married earlier. He further submits that another case was filed by the O.P. No. 2 in Indore against the petitioner, for the same allegation in which the petitioner has been acquitted and judgment has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. He further submits that the compromise has reached between the parties.

4. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties for that a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners as well as O.P. No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 2719 of 2023 seeking permission to compromise the case. The said I.A. is supported with separate affidavit of the petitioners as well as O.P. No.2. He submits that O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further in this case.

5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that since the compromise is there, the Court may pass appropriate order.

6. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in those cases which are not compoundable and there is no chance of conviction and also there is no societal interest, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, the power is to be exercised. In Paragraphs-27 and 28, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“27. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.

28. We have found that