JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. V.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No. 196 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2382 of 2014, including the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A complaint case was instituted being Complaint Case No. 2198 of 2014 in which it was alleged that the informant had 3 Katha of land in Bawangora upon which there was some construction. It is alleged that accused no. 1 came to know that the informant was in need of money and therefore he took her to accused nos. 2 and 3 and they assured that a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be released in her favour but for which she has to spend an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. It has further been alleged that the informant gave Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner along with original documents such as sale deed, mutation paper etc. Subsequently the informant was taken to the Bank of Baroda where she was introduced to the Bank Manager and it was assured that the loan shall be passed within one month. Subsequently it is said that the informant had received a paper from the Bank of Baroda and on 01.04.2014 she had received a notice from which she could come to know that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the Bank of Baroda and for which the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- and the informant was made a guarantor. The Complaint Case was sent to the Police for instituting a First Information Report pursuant to which Parsudih P.S. Case No. 196 of 2014 was instituted. 4. At the outset, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and apart from settling the issue with the Bank the entire original documents had been returned back to the informant. 5. Mr. Rahul Deo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 4. At the outset, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and apart from settling the issue with the Bank the entire original documents had been returned back to the informant. 5. Mr. Rahul Deo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that he does not have any objection if the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner be quashed. 6. It appears from perusal of the I.A. No. 6859 of 2017 which is by way of a joint compromise petition that the petitioner had handed over the documents to the informant after getting the issue settled with the Bank. There does not appear to be any doubt with respect to such averment made in the interlocutory application as the same has also been accepted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 7. In view of the compromise so arrived at between the parties and the dispute being purely private in nature, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an act in futility and would lead to a miscarriage of justice. 8. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No. 196 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2382 of 2014, including the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 9. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of. Application allowed.