JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Spl. P.P. for the State and Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST Case No. 8 of 2021, arising out of Complaint Case No. 6 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Lohardaga. 3. The complaint was filed stating therein that in the year 2015 this petitioner has received Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 80,000/- in cheque i.e. to provide job to one Dharmdeo Oraon, nephew of the informant. The amount was not paid neither the job was provided. On 18.04.2021 when the informant went to the petitioner’s house, the petitioner abused and assaulted him. It has been suspected by the informant that Rs. 2,80,000/- has been defalcated by the petitioner. It has further been alleged that neither the petitioner had provided the job nor returned money. Accordingly complaint case was filed and the said complaint was sent for its institution and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Court and accordingly, the case has been instituted vide Lohardaga SC/ST Case No. 8 of 2021. 4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint was filed for recovery of certain amount, which was paid in the year 2015 itself and unnecessarily Section of SC/ST Act has been added in the complaint petition. He submits that now the compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2, which has been brought by way of filing I.A. No. 1713 of 2022, wherein it has been disclosed in the said I.A. that amount in question has been said to be paid to the O.P. No. 2. 5. Paras 4, 5 and 6 of the said I.A. is quoted herein-below: “4. That it is humbly stated and submitted that during the pendency of the present quashing application, the petitioner has already paid the disputed amount to the O.P. No. 2 and as such they have decided to amicably settle the disputes between them. 5. 5. Paras 4, 5 and 6 of the said I.A. is quoted herein-below: “4. That it is humbly stated and submitted that during the pendency of the present quashing application, the petitioner has already paid the disputed amount to the O.P. No. 2 and as such they have decided to amicably settle the disputes between them. 5. That it is stated that as per the terms of the compromise, the petitioner has paid the agreed amount to the O.P. No. 2 and have filed an application before the learned Court as well. 6. That it is pertinent to state here that abiding the terms of the compromise, the agreed amount has already been paid by the petitioner to the O.P. No. 2.” 6. Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 accepts the aforesaid submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submits that both the parties have entered into a compromise and the amount in question has already been received by the O.P. No. 2. He further submits that in view of the statements, made in Paras-4, 5 and 6 of the aforesaid I.A. this petition may kindly be allowed. 7. On perusal of the said I.A. it appears that the affidavit has been supported by the petitioner as well as the O.P. No. 2. In the said I.A., the terms and conditions has been mentioned in Paras-4, 5 and 6 thereof. 8. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case relates to Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989, in the case of Ramgopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 along with Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012 and in that case, the compromise has been considered and it has been held that the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked. For ready reference, Para-19 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “19. For ready reference, Para-19 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim and (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” 9. It is well settled that where the compromise is entered into between the parties and societal interest is not there, the High Court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the Sections are not compoundable. 10. In view of the aforesaid compromise and upon going through the aforesaid I.A., this Court is inclined to invoke the power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As such the entire criminal proceeding so far as the petitioner is concerned is, hereby, quashed for the reasons that must be the occurrence involved in this petition can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature; secondly the nature of complaint is with regard to certain money recovered from the petitioner and thirdly the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties. 11. For the above facts, reasons, analysis and in view of the statements made in Para-4, 5 and 6 of the aforesaid I.A. the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST Case No. 8 of 2021 arising out of Complaint Case No. 6 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Lohardaga, is hereby, quashed. 12. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. The aforesaid I.A. also stands disposed of.