ORDER : Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”), the petitioners have questioned the continuation of the criminal proceeding and the legality of the order dated 01.04.2004 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela-Kharsawan whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offence under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. 2. The facts of the case, which is relevant for the proper appreciation of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that at the instance of complainant Dharamveer Singh, Joint Managing Director, Model Heavy Fabrication Pvt. Ltd., Gamharia, Saraikela-Kharswan, the aforesaid case was instituted under Section 406 and 120(B) of I.P.C. on the allegation that the complainant deals with the manufacturing and exports of Earth moving buckets and attachment. The petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 approached the complainant for purchase of CAT-938G Bucket for caterpillar loader worth Rs. 4,64,000/-. The complainant on the assurance of payment by the petitioners prepared invoice no. 660 dated 04.01.2002 and dispatched the said bucket on the instruction of the petitioners but the petitioners deliberately did not make any payment rather they falsely alleged that there were certain defects in the said bucket. However, on receipt of the aforesaid instruction, the complainant sent his Works Manager to the factory of the accused-petitioners and got the defects rectified to the satisfaction of the petitioners but in spite of that, the petitioners did not pay any amount towards the value of the materials received by them. Whereafter, this complaint was lodged. 3. It appears from the record that after recording of the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, other witnesses were examined and thereafter, the court below finding sufficient materials and prima facie case took cognizance of the offence under Section 406/34 I.P.C. by order dated 01.04.2004 and directed to issue summons to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order of taking cognizance and continuation of the entire criminal proceeding, the petitioners preferred this criminal miscellaneous petition. 4. From perusal of the order dated 09.10.2015 of this miscellaneous petition, it appears that submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount in dispute has already been paid with interest and in support of his contention a money receipt (Anneuxre-5) was enclosed with this criminal miscellaneous petition. Ms. 4. From perusal of the order dated 09.10.2015 of this miscellaneous petition, it appears that submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount in dispute has already been paid with interest and in support of his contention a money receipt (Anneuxre-5) was enclosed with this criminal miscellaneous petition. Ms. Ritu Kumar learned counsel appearing for complaint-opposite party no.2 accepted the payment of the amount with interest by the petitioners to the opposite party no. 2 and further accepted the grant of money receipt (Anneuxre-5). 5. Learned senior counsel Mr. V.P. Singh appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the parties have settled their disputes, the allegation being civil in nature and has no impact on society, they may be allowed to compound the offence in consonance with the wisdom of the legislature for which Section 320 of Cr.P.C. was enacted. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon paragraph 58 of the case Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2012) 10 SCC 303 , which reads as follows: “58. .............Certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” Learned senior counsel further submitted that the present case also comes well within the four corners of the said judgment. It was also submitted that in the changed circumstances, if the proceeding is allowed to continue, in such eventuality, there would be almost no chance of conviction and it would be a sheer wastage of the court’s valuable time and tantamount to abuse of process of Court. 6. It was also submitted that in the changed circumstances, if the proceeding is allowed to continue, in such eventuality, there would be almost no chance of conviction and it would be a sheer wastage of the court’s valuable time and tantamount to abuse of process of Court. 6. Ms. Ritu Kumar learned counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party no.2 assisted by Ms. Niki Sinha also relying upon B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Hariyana and another; (2003) 4 SCC 675 supported the contention of Mr. Singh the learned senior counsel and submitted that the ratio decided in the above case B.S. Joshi (supra) has also been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), hence the parties when settled their disputes, permission may be accorded to the parties to compound the offence and she has no objection if the entire criminal proceeding as well as order taking cognizance are quashed. 7. Section 320 of the Code sets out the details of offences in different tables, which are compoundable by the parties and those which are compoundable with the leave of the court. It is no doubt that Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is included in the Schedule of Section 320 of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 51 of Gian Singh (supra) has held has follows: “51. Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with regard to the compounding of offences. It catalogues the offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the court and the composition of certain offences with the permission of the court. The offences punishable under the special statues are not covered by Section 320. When an offence is compoundable under Section 320, abatement of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. A person who is under 18 years of age or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent to contract compounding of offence but the same can be done on his behalf with the permission of the court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the offence with the permission of the court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the offence with the permission of the court. Where the accused has been committed for trial or he has been convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only be done with the leave of the court to which he has been committed or with the leave of the appeal court, as the case may be. The Revisional Court is also competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound. The consequence of the composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an offence has to be in accord with Section 320 and in no other manner.” 8. Apparently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment has decided the ratio and given the permission to the Court to compound any offence, which comes within the Schedule of Section 320 of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the consequence of composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. 9. In view of the fact that a money receipt (Annexure-5) has been filed and in view of the submissions that now they have no grievance against each other, the parties are allowed to compound the offence in the light of the ratio decided in the above case. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is, hereby, allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 01.04.2004 and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case no. 122 of 2003 are, hereby, quashed.