JUDGMENT : By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 14 of 2019 and the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in Complaint Case No. 14 of 2019 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly draw attention of this Court to Interlocutory Application No. 2982 of 2023 which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner nos.1 and 3 and opposite party no.2. 4. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that Complaint Case No.14 of 2019 arose out of matrimonial dispute between the parties and drawing attention of this Court to page no.10 of the said Interlocutory Application No. 2982 of 2023 which is a joint compromise arrived at between the parties to the case with intervention of the mediator appointed by JHALSA, it is submitted that the parties have compromised and the petitioner no.3 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. Drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 23.03.2023 passed in F.A. No.42 of 2022, by a Division Bench of this Court, it is submitted that as mentioned in the said order, the petitioner no.3 has handed over the two drafts in total of Rs.6,00,000/-to the opposite party no.2. It is next submitted that as compromise has been effected to between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with this criminal proceeding and the same will lead to abuse of process of the court. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of in Complaint Case No. 14 of 2019 and the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in Complaint Case No. 14 of 2019 be quashed. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, in view of the compromise between the parties. 6. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, in view of the compromise between the parties. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11 as under :- “11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) “61. … 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. 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. 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 predominatingly 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor they are serious offences or offences relating to mental depravity; rather the same has resulted from a marital discord between the petitioner and his relatives on one hand and opposite party no.2 on the other hand. 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 them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 8. After going through the materials in the record and also the submissions made at the Bar jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as also the order dated 23.03.2023 in F.A. No.42 of 2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the parties have resolved their entire dispute and the parties have decided to live separately on payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 6,00,000/-by the petitioner no.3 to the opposite party no.2 which has already been paid. 9. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding and the continuance of criminal proceeding would tantamount to the abuse of the process of court and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that this criminal miscellaneous petition be put to an end. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 14 of 2019 and the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in Complaint Case No. 14 of 2019 is quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and in view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, Interlocutory Application no. 2982 of 2023 stands disposed of. 12. Consequently, the interim order, if any, passed in this case stands vacated.