Order Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to add the complainant as opposite party No.2 in this case. 2. Permission, as sought for, is hereby granted. 3. Necessary amendment be carried out in the cause-title of the main petition, accordingly, during course of the day. 4. By waiving the notice, opposite party No.2 has appeared before this Court. (I.A. No. 5709 of 2014) 5. Present interlocutory application has been filed in the form of joint compromise petition by the petitioners as well as opposite party No.2, inter alia, stating that on account of intervention of friends, well-wishers and relatives, the matter has been compromised between the parties and dues have been settled in terms of compromise. 6. It is submitted that petition for compromise was also submitted before the learned court-below taking into consideration the fact that amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Petitioner No.2 was released on bail, as per order passed in B.P. No. 2085 of 2013 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad. It is submitted that due to intervention of friends, well-wishers and relatives, normal and cordial relationship has been restored between the parties. 7. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the parties have submitted that no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal prosecution and it will be a futile exercise and therefore, the petitioners as well as opposite party No.2 have made joint prayer by way of filing the present interlocutory application for allowing the present criminal miscellaneous petition by taking into consideration the amicable settlement/ compromise arrived at between the parties. 8. Learned counsels for the parties submitted that the petitioners as well as opposite party No.2 are present before this Court and they have ascertained the correctness of the averments made in the application and it is submitted by both of them that the said compromise has been arrived at willingly and without any undue pressure. Both the parties have also filed affidavits in support of the said interlocutory application. 9. Learned counsels for the parties have drawn the attention of this Court to the several decisions of the Apex Court and their relevant paragraphs are reproduced here-in-below: (i) Jagdish Chanana & Ors. versus State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2008(3) JLJR 304 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “2. 9. Learned counsels for the parties have drawn the attention of this Court to the several decisions of the Apex Court and their relevant paragraphs are reproduced here-in-below: (i) Jagdish Chanana & Ors. versus State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2008(3) JLJR 304 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th July 2006 rejecting the prayer for quashing of FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 read with Section 34 of the CPC. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court, Crl. Misc. Petition No. 42/2008 has been filed putting on record a compromise deed dated 30th April 2007. The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings.” (ii) Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014)3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 54, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “31. In the present case, FIR No. 121 dated 14-7-2010 was registered under Sections 307/324/323/34 IPC. The investigation was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners, namely, the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners, namely, the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the compromise took place between the parties on 12-7-2013 when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the said persons/panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court should have accepted the said compromise and quashed the proceedings. 32. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court’s approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in mind which compel us to take a different view. 33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute, etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz. “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise uptil now, which could not be finalised”. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 121 dated 14-7-2010 registered with Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly”. (iii) Madan Mohan Abbot versus State of Punjab, reported in (2008)4 Supreme Court Cases 582, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” (iv) Shiji alias Pappu and Others. versus Radhika and Another, reported in (2011)10 Supreme Court Cases 705, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC. 18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 CrPC by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.” 10. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.” 10. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that since the matter has been amicably settled between petitioners and opposite party No.2, State is not having any objection, if the present criminal miscellaneous petition is ordered to be disposed of by passing appropriate order. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between petitioner and opposite party No.2 and accordingly, compromise petition has been submitted before the learned court-below. The said fact has been verified by the learned counsel for the parties from their respective clients. Since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties in terms of compromise petition, the parties have not any grievance against each other and this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served, if the criminal prosecution is allowed to be continued. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the prosecution witnesses may not support the case and it will be a futile exercise and therefore, having regard to the above referred decision cited by the learned counsel for the parties, it is a fit case to exercise inherent power vested with the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, present criminal miscellaneous petition is ordered to be allowed. Accordingly, First Information Report (FIR) in connection with Putki (Munidih) P.S. Case No. 33 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1128 of 2013, now pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad is ordered to be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5709 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No. 1754 of 2013 stand disposed of.