JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding and the order dated 29.11.2022 as well as the FIR being Bankmore P.S. case no. 305 of 2019 (G.R. No. 2527 of 2021) involving the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned CJM, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the informant jointly draws attention of the court to the I.A. No. 5072 of 2025 which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner as well as the informant and submits that therein it has been mentioned that during the pendency of the case, the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled and the amount of Rs. 8,20,000/- has been paid to the informant by the petitioner and thereafter also, several substantial amounts have further been paid. It is next submitted that since both the parties have settled the matter, hence, the informant does not want to proceed with the case and in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant is not interested in pursuing the case, hence, the chance of the conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in the case hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of law and no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceeding after compromise have been entered into between the parties, hence, it is jointly submitted that the quash the entire criminal proceeding and the order dated 29.11.2022 as well as the FIR being Bankmore P.S. case no. 305 of 2019 (G.R. No.2527 of 2021), be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 4. Learned Addl. PP submits that the State has no objection to the prayer of quashing the entire criminal proceeding and the order dated 29.11.2022 as well as the FIR being Bankmore P.S. case no. 305 of 2019 (G.R. No. 2527 of 2021) in view of the compromise between the parties. 5. 4. Learned Addl. PP submits that the State has no objection to the prayer of quashing the entire criminal proceeding and the order dated 29.11.2022 as well as the FIR being Bankmore P.S. case no. 305 of 2019 (G.R. No. 2527 of 2021) in view of the compromise between the parties. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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 and Others v. State of Gujarat and 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 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 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) 6. 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 put the accused person 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. It dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. 7. In view of the submission made jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, this court is satisfied that the parties have amicably resolved their entire dispute and 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 the Bankmore P.S. case no. 305 of 2019 (G.R. No. 2527 of 2021) against the petitioner be put to an end. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding and the order dated29.11.2022 as well as the FIR being Bankmore P.S. case no. 305 of2019 (G.R. No. 2527 of 2021) is quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.