JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 02.09.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj, including the entire criminal proceedings of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 13 of 2019 corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 13/2020 (G.R. No. 976 of 2020), pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj. 3. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(w)(I) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He further submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. He also submits that the police has filed charge-sheet under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, however the learned court has taken cognizance under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also. He further submits that now good relationship has been developed between the parties and compromise has been reached between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 submits that both the parties have compromised the case. On instruction, he submits that now opposite party no. 2 is not willing to proceed in the case and for that a joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 1071 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and opposite party no. 2. He further submits that the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 have compromised the case out of their own free and sweet will without any pressure, coercion, compulsion or influence from any corner whatsoever. 5. Both the counsel jointly submit that the said I.A. is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner as well as opposite party no. 2. 6. It appears that the charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. However, the learned court has taken cognizance under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also. 7. 2. 6. It appears that the charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. However, the learned court has taken cognizance under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also. 7. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case relates to Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 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 of India can be invoked. For ready reference, paragraph 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.” 8. 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. 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. 9. 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 altercation and thirdly the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis and in view of the statements made in paragraph 6, 8 and 9 of the aforesaid I.A. the order taking cognizance dated 02.09.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj, including the entire criminal proceedings of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 13 of 2019 corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 13/2020 (G.R. No. 976 of 2020), pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj, so far as the petitioner is concerned is, hereby, quashed. 11. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. 12. Consequently, I.A. No. 1071 of 2022 stands disposed of. 13. Interim order dated 01.12.2020 stands vacated.