IMPORTANT POINT
The court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC when parties settle their dispute, especially in cases with a civil nature, preventing abuse of process.

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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings of Kotwali P.S. Case No.247 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.4871 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code including the order dated 22.09.2018 whereby and where under cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and summons have also been issued against the petitioner and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant/opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.2293 of 2024 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner and the informant/opposite party No.2 wherein it has been mentioned that the parties have already settled their dispute outside the court amicably with the intervention of common friends and well-wishers. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a dispute having civil flavour and no public policy is involved. 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. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings of Kotwali P.S. Case No.247 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.4871 of 2017 including the order dated 22.09.2018 whereby and where under cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and summons have also been issued against the petitioner, which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceedings of Kotwali P.S. Case No.247 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.4871 of 2017 including the order dated 22.09.2018 whereby and where under cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and summons have also been issued against the petitioner, which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 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 & 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