The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, the impact on society, and the fairness and interest of justice in continuing with the criminal proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court :- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.05.2018 passed in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No.86 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.1219 of 2014 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Annexure-2 page-24 to 26 of the brief and submit that consequent upon mediation at the Mediation Centre, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro, a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and both of the parties have agreed to live separately from each other. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite party No.2 and they had earlier paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party No.2 and today, the learned counsel for the petitioners hands over the demand draft bearing No.350995 dated 21.06.2023 of Rs.50,000/- to the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 which is acknowledged by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that in view of the compromise between the parties, the opposite party No.2 is not desirous of proceeding ahead with the case. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private one and no public policy is involved and the offence involved is neither serious nor of mental depravity. It is then jointly submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.05.2018 passed in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No.86 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.1219 of 2014 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, State has no serious objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.05.2018 passed in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No.86 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.1219 of 2014 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat.

5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, had the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11 as under:-

“11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent