JUDGMENT : 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 including the order dated 11.05.2022 passed in connection with Special POCSO Case No.41 of 2022, corresponding to Putki P.S. Case No.13 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No. 198 of 2022, whereby and where under, the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Dhanbad has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of POCSO Act against the petitioners which is now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to Interlocutory Application No. 3365 of 2023 which is supported by separate affidavits of the complainant-Pushpa Devi and the two petitioners submit that the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 namely Pushpa Devi has entered into a joint compromise with the intervention of well-wishers and close relatives. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is purely personal dispute and no public policy is involved in the offences. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the compromise has been entered into between the parties amicably without any coercion and threat and the informant does not want to proceed with the case. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that no offence for which the FIR has been lodged is made out against the petitioners and the occurrence alleged leading to registration of the FIR is highly improbable. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that prior to institution of this case by the complainant, the father of the petitioner no.2 namely Jyoti Lal Rawani lodged F.I.R. vide Putki (Munidih O.P.) P.S. Case No.116 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 326, 307 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and as a counter blast, this case was instituted by the complainant-opposite party no.2 in a fit of anger. It is then submitted that in view of complete settlement between the parties and consequential restoration of harmony and goodwill, the continuance of this criminal proceeding vide Putki P.S. Case No.13 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No. 198 of 2022, corresponding to Special POCSO Case No.41 of 2022 involving the offence punishable under Sections 323, 354/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of POCSO Act against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of the Court as the case is allowed to proceed despite the compromise and settlement between the parties, in all likelihood will end up in acquittal of the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 11.05.2022 passed in connection with Special POCSO Case No.41 of 2022, corresponding to Putki P.S. Case No.13 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No. 198 of 2022 be quashed. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in view of compromise and settlement 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. 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. 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 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. 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.” 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences and the alleged offence are highly improbable as this case has apparently been instituted as a counter blast to the case instituted by the father of the petitioner no.2 against the complainant-opposite party no.2. Because of the compromise between the alleged offenders and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case vide Putki P.S. Case No.13 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No. 198 of 2022, corresponding to Special POCSO Case No.41 of 2022 would put the accused-petitioners 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. 8. 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 law and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that Special POCSO Case No.41 of 2022, corresponding to Putki P.S. Case No.13 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No. 198 of 2022 be put to an end. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 11.05.2022 passed in connection with Special POCSO Case No.41 of 2022, corresponding to Putki P.S. Case No.13 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No. 198 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. 10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and in view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, Interlocutory Application no. 3365 of 2023 is disposed of. 11. Consequently, the interim order, if any, passed in this case stands vacated.