IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was influenced by the principle that in cases of private civil disputes with a complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction being remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal case causing great oppression and prejudice to the accused, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding to secure the ends of justice.

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 Bankmore P.S. Case No.41 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending in the court of learned 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 page-70-71 of the brief which is the copy of the affidavit sworn by the informant wherein he has stated that the case was lodged with the police for outstanding payment of the companies namely Krishnaping Alloys Limited and Krishnaping Minerals Private Limited of which the petitioner No.1 is the Director and the petitioner No.2 is the Ex-Director and after filing of the complaint upon discussion, the informant came to know that the payment was held up because of a commercial dispute on the part of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioners are ready and willing to make the payment for legitimate dues and it has been further averred in the said affidavit that the informant has received the sum of Rs.12,50,000/- in full and final settlement against Krishnaping Alloys Limited and Krishnaping Minerals Private Limited. Hence, the informant has no objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No.41 of 2023 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad and he does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is involved. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law as in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No.41 of 2023 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Spl.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 Bankmore P.S. Case No.41 of 2023 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

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