JUDGMENT : 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. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as FIR of S.B.G (S.C./S.T) Case No.08 of 2020, pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge-1st (Special Judge of S.C./S.T.) Sahibganj. 3. The prosecution case has been filed stating therein that, the prosecution case is based on an application given by the O.P.No.2 to the officer incharge of SC/ST police station Sahibganj, wherein it is alleged by the O.P.no.2 that, the O.P.No.2 has got married with one Shankar Ramani, brother of the petitioner No.2 twelve years ago. The petitioner no.2 is brother in law and the appellant no.1 is Nandosi of the O.P. No.2. They have making atrocities since her marriage. They were directing Shankar Ramani to leave Adivasi Paharin girl. Shankar Ramani resides at Pakur with his wife. ON 25.03.2018, the O.P.No.2 and her husband came Barharwa for partition of the land of Baneshwar Ramani. On 25.03.2018 at about 07.00 P.M. when the house of the O.P.No.2 asked for his share in partition then they abused the O.P.No.2 that you belong to schedule tribe who called you here and they assaulted Shankar Ramani. The O.P.No.2 and her husband gave a written petition to the officer in charge Barharwa P.S. but nothing has been done by the officer in charge of Barharwa P.S. on 26.04.2018, the husband of the O.P.no.2 and she came Barharwa for correction in Ration card. On telephone the accused abused and directed the accused to kill the Adivasi Paharin, who demands partition. The petitioner abused the O.P.no.2 being indicate her cast name. Both the appellants have assaulted her by lathi and they torn the blouse of the O.P.No.2 and the petitioner snatched a Garland of three bharies of silver worth Rs.1500/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to indulgence of the well-wishers as well as O.P.No.2 a compromise has been arrived at between the parties which has been filed before the concerned court and which is Annexure-2 in this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to indulgence of the well-wishers as well as O.P.No.2 a compromise has been arrived at between the parties which has been filed before the concerned court and which is Annexure-2 in this petition. He submits that in view of this compromise petition between the parties which was due to intervention of the eminent persons of the village, he submits that in view of this compromise this Court is empowered to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. 5. Mr. Pandey, the learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and he also supports that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that there is a compromise which is annexure-2 to the petition and in view of the compromise this Court may interfere and quash the entire proceeding. 6. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that on the basis of compromise, if there is no societal interest involved this Court is empowered to quash the proceeding. 7. In view of the above fact and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that there is no societal interest involved in this FIR and it is between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2, this Court can exercise power under section 482 Cr.PC. A reference may be made to 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. 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.” 8. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the compromise matter. The case arising out of SC/ST Act. In the case of “Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh” [Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011] wherein at paragraph no.16, it has been observed as follows : “16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a special statute would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.” 9. In view of the above facts and considering the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of “Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another” and “Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh” (supra), the entire criminal proceeding arising out of FIR of S.B.G (S.C./S.T) Case No.08 of 2020, pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge-1st (Special Judge of S.C./S.T.) Sahibganj is hereby quashed. 10. Cr. M.P. No.2630 of 2021 stands allowed.