JUDGMENT : In both the cases common order and complaint (converted into F.I.R. being Sakchi P.S. Case No. 109/2021) are under challenge that is why both the petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Vandana Bharti and Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 3. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed for quashing of order dated 09.03.2021 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 521 of 2021 whereby complaint has been sent under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution of F.I.R. and investigation and also for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including F.I.R. in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 109/2021 dated 28.05.2021, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the case is arising out of business transaction and now both the parties have compromised the dispute for that joint compromise petitions have been filed on behalf of petitioners as well as O.P. No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 5663/2022 in Cr. M.P. No. 576 of 2022 and I.A. No. 5662 of 2022 in Cr. M.P. No. 605/2022 seeking permission to compromise the case. He further submits that there is no societal interest involved in this case and the entire criminal proceeding can be quashed. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that compromise has reached between the parties. He submits that O.P. No. 2 has no grievance. He submits that O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further in the matter. He submits that the entire criminal proceeding can be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that as the case has been compromised between the parties, the court may pass appropriate order. 7. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in those cases which are not compoundable and there is no chance of conviction and also there is no societal interest, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, the power is to be exercised. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in those cases which are not compoundable and there is no chance of conviction and also there is no societal interest, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, the power is to be exercised. In Paragraphs-27 and 28, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “27. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case. 28. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court. 28. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court. There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatche.” 8. In the case of “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing of the case in terms of the settlement, arrived at between the parties. Paragraph-61 of the said judgment reads as follows:- “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the joint compromise petitions filed by both the parties before this Court stating that compromise has reached between the parties, the dispute is with regard to business transaction, the grievance of the O.P. No. has been fulfilled, O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the case, there is no chance of conviction, no societal interest is involved in this case and also taking into consideration the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh & Ors. (Supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), the order dated 09.03.2021 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 521 of 2021 whereby complaint has been sent under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution of F.I.R. and investigation and entire criminal proceeding including F.I.R. in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 109/2021 dated 28.05.2021, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, are hereby quashed. 10. Both the Criminal Miscellaneous petitions stand allowed and disposed of. I.A. No. 5663 of 2022 and I.A. No.5662/2022 also stand allowed and disposed of. Interim orders are vacated.