JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. 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 Complaint Case No. 607 of 2020 in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 34, 120 B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No. 10045 of 2023 which is supported by the separate affidavit of the complainant and the petitioner No. 3 wherein it has been mentioned that the parties have entered into a compromise and the petitioners have already paid Rs.1,40,000/- to the opposite party No. 2/complainant earlier and today they have handed over a demand draft of Rs.1,40,000/- to the opposite party No. 2/complainant in view of the compromise. 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 Complaint Case No. 607 of 2020 in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside.

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 Complaint Case No. 607 of 2020 in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi.

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 and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another , (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 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. 342-343, 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 f