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 in connection with Complaint Case No. 1310 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 by drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.6187 of 2023 which is a joint compromise petition supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2 submits that therein it has been mentioned that the parties have already settled their dispute outside the Court and the dispute between the parties is a private dispute. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that because of some misunderstanding, the opposite party no.2 alleged that in fraudulent manner, the petitioners used their power of attorney and sold her and her brother’s and sister’s property. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute is having essentially a civil flavor. Hence, it is submitted that for the ends of justice the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1310 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1310 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in view of the compromise between the parties. 5. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1310 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in view of the compromise between the parties. 5. 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. 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. 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 neither heinous offences nor any serious offences of mental depravity is alleged to have taken place rather the alleged offence has occurred because of land dispute between the parties which is pre-dominatingly having a civil flavour. 7. Because of the compromise between the offenders and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would certainly 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. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1310 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1310 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 11. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.6187 of 2023 is disposed of being infructuous.