JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Spl. P.P. for the opposite party-State and Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No.257/2015 dated 06.11.2015, corresponding to G.R. No.4401/2015 for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramgarh. 3. The case was instituted alleging therein that the petitioner took a loan of Rs.4,45,000/- from the informant which he had saved for marriage of his younger sister. It was also alleged that when the informant asked for return of his amount, the petitioner was delaying payment and threatened the informant to falsely implicate him in criminal case. It was also alleged that when the informant pressurized through friends and relatives, the petitioner gave five cheques of different banks of different amounts. When the aforesaid cheques were deposited, all the said cheques got dishonoured whereupon the petitioner gave his Car as security. When the informant asked for his money, the petitioner assaulted him whereupon the informant filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh and, thereafter, on the basis of the said allegations, a case being Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 257/2015 has been registered against the petitioner. 4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as opposite party no.2 have compromised the matter. He further submits that this case is arising out of dispute between two individuals and that has been settled between the parties. He also submits that a joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 5235 of 2021 has been filed. He further submits that it has been stated in the said I.A. that now the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and opposite party no.2. 5. Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is present and submits that now the matter has been compromised and this matter can be disposed of. 6. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Spl.P.P. for the State is also present and he submits that no societal interest is involved in this case. 7. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is present and submits that now the matter has been compromised and this matter can be disposed of. 6. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Spl.P.P. for the State is also present and he submits that no societal interest is involved in this case. 7. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in those cases which are not compoundable and there is no chance of conviction and also there is no societal interest, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, the power is to be exercised. In Paragraphs-29 and 30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “29. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/ investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case. 30. 30. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court. There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatche.” 8. In the case of “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing of the case in terms of the settlement, arrived at between the parties. Paragraph-61 of the said judgment reads as follows:- “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the joint compromise petition, filed by both the parties before this Court stating that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the opposite party does not want to proceed with the case, no societal interest is involved in this case and also taking into consideration the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh & Ors. (Supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No.257/2015 dated 06.11.2015, corresponding to G.R. No.4401/2015, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramgarh, are hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and disposed of. 11. Consequently, I.A. No. 5235 of 2021 also stands allowed and disposed of.