IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases with predominantly civil flavor and where the possibility of conviction is remote despite a settlement between the offender and the victim.

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 entire criminal proceeding in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.209 of 2021 dated 12.11.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Annexure-2 of the counter-affidavit which is the settlement arrived at between the parties at the District Mediation Centre, Koderma and submit that the parties have settled their dispute by mediation before the mediator. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute and as complete settlement has arrived at between the parties, hence, the petitioner will be put to great hardship and difficulty unless the entire criminal proceeding of Koderma P.S. Case No.209 of 2021, as prayed for by the petitioner, is quashed. It is next submitted that the case is at the nascent stage of investigation; hence, no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding of Koderma P.S. Case No.209 of 2021 be quashed.

4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.209 of 2021 dated 12.11.2021, as prayed for by the petitioner.

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 cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. can