ORDER : 1. The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 07.01.2013 pronounced by the Learned Sessions Judge, West-Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 2011, whereby the learned Appellate Court has confirmed and upheld the judgment of conviction and modified the order of sentence both dated 16.09.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Chaibasa in G.R. No. 451 of 2001, corresponding to T.R. No. 13 of 2011, wherein the learned Trial Court has held the petitioners guilty of committing offence under Section 420/120 B of the Indian Penal Code and passed the order of sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for both the sentences. However, the learned Sessions Judge while upholding the judgment of conviction, has modified the order of sentence from 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- to R.I. for a period of six months each under Sections 420/120B of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case, which is based on the written report of the informant Anup Kumar Khatri in which he has alleged that a land survey training programme is being run by Udayami Kalyan Sevea Sansthan is Mangi Lal Rungta Middle School, Chaibasa since 13.09.2001 and the Training in charge Md. Ataullah and other associates are running the programme by giving advertisement and publishing pamphlets on false allurement and Rs.150/- was taken by the employee of this Sansthan for the training fee as given in the advertisement and pamphlets. The informant was given receipt of Rs.150/- for entry fee. The informant further alleged that the training course was promised for 45 days. However, just after 30 days the Sansthan took examination on 04.11.2001 after collecting Rs.200/- as additional examination fee from each trainee and the receipt for the same was not given to the trainees rather their signatures were obtained on a plain paper. Thereafter upon the protest of the informant and others, the examination was postponed. The informant further alleged that Md. Iliyas and Md. Ataullah the training in charge of the organization, whose registration no. is 134/97-98 having its head office at Patna, are cheating him as well as other unemployed youth on false allurement after collecting money from them. 3. Thereafter upon the protest of the informant and others, the examination was postponed. The informant further alleged that Md. Iliyas and Md. Ataullah the training in charge of the organization, whose registration no. is 134/97-98 having its head office at Patna, are cheating him as well as other unemployed youth on false allurement after collecting money from them. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant a Sadar P.S. Case No. 80/2001 was registered u/s 406, 409, 420, 468, 120 (B) of the I.P.C. and after completion of the investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 420, 468, 120B of I.P.C. and charge was framed against accused persons on 20.01.2006 and thereafter, the accused persons were sent up for trial. 4. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined although 12 prosecution witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 Anup Kumar Khatri, informant of this Case, P.W. 2. Ganesh Sharma, P.W.3 Santosh Kumar Thakur, P.W.4 Manoj Kumar Sahu, P.W.5 Ashok Kumar Mahato, P.W.6 Rakesh Kumar Singh, P.W.7 Basu Machhua, P.W.8 Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma, P.W.9 Rakesh Kumar Vishwakarma, P.W.10 Kashi Kujur, P.W.11 Alok Kumar and P.W.12 Arun Kumar. The prosecution has adduced several documentary evidence also, which have been exhibited and marked as Exts. in this Case. 5. The defence has also examined two D.Ws. in this case, namely D.W.1 Muresh Chaudhary and D.W.2 Sakib Asdullah and adduced several documentary evidence, which have been marked as Exts. in this case on behalf of the defence. 6. On the basis of the evidences, both oral and documentary, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16th September, 2011, held the petitioners guilty of having committed offence under Sections 420/120 B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each for both the sentences. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners herein filed appeal before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court who confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. 8. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners herein filed appeal before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court who confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a compromise has already been arrived at between the parties in this case and he has filed an interlocutory application. 9. The Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 4039 of 2019 which has been filed in the instant case transpires that both the parties have appeared before this Court on 12.04.2019 and clearly stated that both of them have resolved their dispute outside the Court and they do not want to continue the litigation, and pursuant to the order of this Court, the parties have filed joint compromise petition in the form of I.A. 10. After perusing the impugned order, I.A. the joint compromise petition and the column enshrined in Section 320 sub-section 2, it appears that Section 420 can be compounded with the permission of the Court. It also appears from the prosecution case that the dispute is private in nature and both the parties does not want to continue the proceeding and live in peace. 11. In the case of Narendra Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014 (6) SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that those criminal cases having over vehemently and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions, should be quashed, when the parties resolve their entire dispute among themselves. It has been further held in catena of judgments that in a situation where Court feels that the parties have earlier desired to bury the hatchet, in the interest of peace, it can reduce sentence of the accused and in case if the parties have settled their dispute, and it appears that further continuance of the criminal proceeding would be detrimental to the peace and harmony in the fundamental, entire criminal proceeding or the order of sentence, can also be set aside. In the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed various guidelines for and limitation on exercise of ‘quashment power of High Court. 12. In the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed various guidelines for and limitation on exercise of ‘quashment power of High Court. 12. In the instant case, the parties to the dispute have compromised and further the offence alleged in the prosecution case is private in nature as such, I am having no hesitation in allowing the interlocutory application which has been filed seeking a direction for disposal of the criminal revision application and as such, the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 4039 of 2019 is allowed. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and judicial pronouncement, the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2013 pronounced by the Learned Sessions Judge, West-Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 2011, and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentenced dated 16.09.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Chaibasa in G.R. No. 451 of 2001, corresponding to T.R. No. 13 of 2011, are set-aside, and this Criminal Revisional Application is disposed of. 14. It appears that the petitioners are availing the privilege of bail pursuant to the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by this Court, as such they are discharged from liability of bail bonds. 15. Let the lower court records be sent to the concerned court, forthwith.