IMPORTANT POINT
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, especially in cases where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak due to a settlement between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

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 order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.9806 of 2022 whereby and where under complaint has been referred under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to police and for quashing the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.167 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 384, 385, 386, 387, 389, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards the Interlocutory Application No.3596 of 2023 and submit that the said Interlocutory Application is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner No.2 and the opposite party No.2 and it is jointly signed by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as well as the opposite party No.2 and the parties have compromised the dispute outside the court. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute regarding construction of a building by using sub-standard material but since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, hence, the opposite party No.2 no longer wishes to proceed any further with the instant case, hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of the court. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.9806 of 2022 whereby and where under complaint has been referred under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to police and the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.167 of 2022, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioner in view of the compromise and complete settlement between the parties.

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 jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)

“61. … the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what case