The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court has the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise between the parties, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, the impact on society, and the possibility of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with T. Tangar P.S. Case No.38 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 401 of 2023 and also to quash the order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned C.J.M., Simdega as well as to quash the further proceedings of the said case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards the Interlocutory Application No.9944 of 2023 which is supported by separate affidavits of the Pairvikar of the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 and submits that therein it has been mentioned that due to intervention of well-wishers and friends, compromise has taken place between the parties and presently no dispute is existing between them. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the informant is the owner of a dumper and while the informant along with driver was going in the said dumper, the petitioner who was travelling in a Innova vehicle with the co-accused persons, overtook him and there was a heated exchange of words between them regarding the overtaking and at the heat of the moment, the case was instituted. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that in fact, no offence of robbery has been committed and the non-occurrence of the offence of robbery; has been found by the police after due investigation of the case. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-2 at page Nos.21-28 of the brief, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that police after due investigation of the case, has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 506, 385, 170 and 34 of Indian Penal Code only but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without any application of mind and without any speaking order has differed from the Final Form submitted by the police and has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code as well. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant does not want to proceed with the criminal case; hence the chance of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that no public policy is involved in the case and the occurrence is a private dispute between the parties.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of 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, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 determinin