JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1-State as well as Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioners have preferred this petitioner for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 14.10.2019 as well as entire criminal proceeding in connection with Seraikela P.S. Case No. 86 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 618 of 2019. 4. The facts of this case in narrow compass is that a complaint was instituted on the basis of statement of opposite party no. 2 in this petition. One Raghavendra Singh and Rajeev Panday having company named “Organic India Agrotech.” The is allegation is that a total amount of Rs. 15,07,000/- have been misappropriated by the petitioners and to that effect an F.I.R. was lodged and cognizance was taken. 5. I.A. No. 1149 of 2021 has been filed which is affidavited by the petitioners as well as opposite party no. 2 wherein it has been disclosed that both the parties have entered into compromise and the petitioners have paid the due amount through bank draft as well as NEFT which has been duly received by the opposite party. The receiving draft is annexed as Annexure 1 to the said I.A. 6. Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 jointly submit that in the light of this compromise, the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed as it is arising out of money transaction and the matter has been settled between the parties. They submit that the section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending and by the person who has been cheated. They submit that the section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending and by the person who has been cheated. They submit that the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot interfere in the light of the compromise as no fruitful purpose will be served as there is no chance of conviction in the trial Court in view of the said compromise. 7. In view of above facts and on perusal of the said I.A. it transpires that the amount in question has been paid to the opposite party no. 2. The receiving is annexed with the said I.A. The settlement to that effect has been given in Para 4 of the said I.A. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Shiji vs. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 . Para 7, 10, 18 and 19 the judgment is quoted herein-below: “7. This Court has, in several decisions, declared that the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. which are not compoundable with or without the permission of the court cannot be allowed to be compounded. In Ram Lal vs. State of J&K this Court referred to Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. to declare that such offences as are made compoundable under Section 320 can alone be compounded and none else. This Court declared two earlier decisions rendered in Y. Suresh Babu vs. State of A.P. and Mahesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, to be per incuriam inasmuch as the same permitted composition of offences not otherwise compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. 10. There is another line of decisions in which this Court has taken note of the compromise arrived at between the parties and quashed the prosecution in exercise of powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy this Court held that the High Court was entitled to quash the proceedings if it came to the conclusion that the ends of justice so required. This Court observed: (SCC pp. This Court observed: (SCC pp. 702-703, Para 7) “7.....Section 482 of the new Code, which corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that: “561-A. Saving of inherent power of High Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” 18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. 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. 19. Coming to the case at hand, we are of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some “misunderstanding and misconception” will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eyewitnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 Cr.P.C. could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below.” 8. In view of above fact that opposite party no. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 Cr.P.C. could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below.” 8. In view of above fact that opposite party no. 2 is here and he has stated on oath that he has received the amount in question and no fruitful purpose would be served if the said compromise will not be allowed. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji vs. Radhika (supra), the Court is inclined to interfere in the matter. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 14.10.2019 as well as entire criminal proceeding in connection with Seraikela P.S. Case No. 86 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 618 of 2019 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, is hereby quashed. 10. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. I.A. No. 1149 of 2021 is also disposed of.