JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, the learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Binod Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 2. This 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. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with SC/ST Gumla P.S.Case No.05/2017, corresponding to G.R.No.710/2017 registered under section 354 of the IPC and section 3(i)(dha)/3(2)(ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The F.I.R was lodged on the basis of written report of Rameshwari Oraon and the case was registered under section 354 IPC and section 3(i)(dha)/3(2)(ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 has entered into a compromise and this fact has been fortified by Mr. Binod Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2. It is submitted that the I.A.No.2772/2021 has been filed on the affidavit of both the parties. The informant has also supported the said I.A, on affidavit. In the complaint case abusive language is used by the petitioner in the name of caste of the O.P.No.2. The dispute is purely private in nature between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 and the joint petition by way of the said I.A. is allowed that is not against the societal interest. 6. In the case of “Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another”, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 for exercising inherent power to quash the criminal proceeding involving non-compoundable offence in view of compromise which has been arrived between the parties as held in paragraph no.29(2) and paragraph 29(5) of the said judgment, is as under: “29.2. 6. In the case of “Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another”, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 for exercising inherent power to quash the criminal proceeding involving non-compoundable offence in view of compromise which has been arrived between the parties as held in paragraph no.29(2) and paragraph 29(5) of the said judgment, is as under: “29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the quiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. xxx xxx xxx 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” 7. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has accepted the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “Narinder Singh & Others” (supra). 8. In view of the compromise arrived between the petitioner and O.P.No.2 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Narinder Singh & Others” (supra), the entire criminal proceeding in connection with SC/ST Gumla P.S.Case No.05/2017, corresponding to G.R.No.710/2017 and the order taking cognizance dated 24.09.2018 whereby cognizance under section 354 IPC and section 3(1)(R)(S)2(Va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was taken, are, hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Cr.M.P. No. 672 of 2019 as well as I.A.No.2772/2021 stand allowed and disposed of.