IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed the FIR based on a compromise between parties, emphasizing that continuation of proceedings would cause injustice and that the possibility of conviction was remote.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal.

3. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 by drawing attention of the court to Interlocutory Application No.2662 of 2024 which is supported by separate affidavit of the petitioner no.1, the injured persons namely Surendra Kumar Arya, Antu Malto as well as the opposite party no.2 and submits that therein it has been mentioned that the parties have settled their dispute. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute is a personal dispute and no public policy is involved and the compromise has been entered amicably without coercion and threat. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the allegation against the petitioners is that the occurrence took place in a group class between two parties relating to storage of stone chips and the allegation of assault is with iron rod. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there is no allegation of any assault being made on any vital part of the body of any of the victims and though as such the occurrence was not of such nature that the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code could have been made out but in order to make the offence a serious one even though from the allegation the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is not made out yet the same has been added in the FIR. It is also jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there was a free fight between the parties and for the same set of occurrence, Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 24 of 2023 has been instituted; but there is no allegation against the petitioners that they were having any tension kill anybody. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that investigation of the case is still going on since 17.05.2023 but charge sheet has not yet been submitted and in view of the compromise, the chance of the conviction of the petitioners are remote and bleak hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of the law. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2023, be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2023, in view of the compromise between the parties.

5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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 Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, in paragraph 29, has laid down the 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 Cr.P.C. while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings which, reads as under :

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, w