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 prosecution arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 144 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No. 10968 of 2023 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the Pairvikar of the petitioner and opposite party No. 2-informant; wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 have compromised the matter vide Memorandum of Settlement dated 15.09.2023 and the terms of the compromise, has been acted upon also and in view of full and final settlement between the parties, the opposite party No. 2 is not desirous of pursuing with the said Bistupur P.S. Case No. 144 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case and because of some misunderstanding, this false case was instituted against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is remote and bleak. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another , (2014) 6 SCC 466 paragraph-29 of which reads as under:

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice.

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among them