JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 80/2016, corresponding to G.R. No.1576/2016 including the order dated 24.03.2017 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 3. The opposite party no.2 has lodged FIR alleging therein that on 27.05.2016 he had gone to Hyderabad for some family purpose. On his return dated 29.05.2016 when he entered his house he found articles scattered here and there. His almirah was broken and the entire jewellery of his wife stolen. He gave details of the articles which had been found stolen/missing which included laptop, mobile, camera, T.V., cash of Rs.15,000/- etc. 4. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employed in the Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.). He further submits that theft was occurred in the house of the informant. The petitioner purchased one mobile from gray market, which was the mobile of opposite party no.2 and that was recovered from the petitioner's house and he has been implicated in this case. He also submits that the petitioner was not knowing how the mobile has been brought in the gray market. He further submits that now compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 and petition to that effect has been filed in the concerned court on 08.07.2022. 5. Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, learned counsel has appeared suo motu on behalf of opposite party no.2 and he accepts the submission of Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that only because the mobile of opposite party no.2 was found in the house of the petitioner, the petitioner has been implicated in the case. He also submits that true fact has come and opposite party no.2 has entered into compromise with the petitioner and, therefore, I.A. No.6912 of 2022 has been filed. He further submits that the said I.A. is supported by the separate affidavits of opposite party no.2 as well as the petitioner. 6. Mrs. He also submits that true fact has come and opposite party no.2 has entered into compromise with the petitioner and, therefore, I.A. No.6912 of 2022 has been filed. He further submits that the said I.A. is supported by the separate affidavits of opposite party no.2 as well as the petitioner. 6. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State submits chargesheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. She further submits that it is for the Court to consider the case as the parties have already compromised the matter. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that only for recovery of mobile in question, the petitioner has been implicated in this case. The petitioner is employed in the C.R.P.F. and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the mobile was purchased from the gray market. It appears that both the parties have compromised the matter. This case is arising out of personal dispute. The dispute is between two individuals. There is no societal interest, involved in this case. There is no chance of conviction in view of further development and to allow the proceeding to continue, will amount to abuse of process of law. Even accepting the submission of Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State that charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, the High Court sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can exercise power at any stage, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji v. Radhika, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705 . Paragraph 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on the other. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are noncompoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C.” 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis and considering the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 80/2016, corresponding to G.R. No.1576/2016 including the order dated 24.03.2017, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur is, hereby, quashed. 9. This petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. 10. Consequently, I.A. No. 6912 of 2022 stands disposed of.