JUDGMENT : By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 03.03.2021 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi arising out of Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.2584 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 352, 498-A, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.2584 of 2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly submit that a compromise has been effected to between the parties consequent upon mediation in the Mediation Centre, Civil Court, Ranchi and the parties, have agreed to resolve their dispute and dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce passed by a competent court with mutual consent. Hence, it is jointly submitted by the parties that in view of the compromise between the parties, the opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed with case and the continuance of this case will amount of abuse of the process of the court and in view of compromise between the parties, the opposite party No.2 is not desirous of prosecuting the case and the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court to the Supplementary Affidavit; in which the copy of the joint petition filed for dissolution of the marriage with mutual consent under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court, Ranchi vide Original Suit (M.T.S.) No.140 of 2022 kept at Annexure-A at page-6 to 14 of the Supplementary Affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners also draws the attention of this Court towards the Mediation Report kept at Annexure-B at page-19-21 of the said Supplementary Affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners also draws the attention of this Court towards the Mediation Report kept at Annexure-B at page-19-21 of the said Supplementary Affidavit. It is then submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 03.03.2021 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi arising out of Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.2584 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 352, 498-A, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.2584 of 2019 be quashed. 4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 03.03.2021 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi arising out of Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.2584 of 2019 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.2584 of 2019. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 , had 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 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 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. 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)” 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity rather the offences involve arise out of disharmony in the matrimonial life of the opposite party No.2 and the petitioner No.1. 7. 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/petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to the petitioners by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the order taking cognizance dated 03.03.2021 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi arising out of Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.2584 of 2019 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.2584 of 2019 as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 9. 9. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 03.03.2021 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi arising out of Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.2584 of 2019 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.2584 of 2019 is quashed and set aside. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.