JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.02.2024 passed in connection with Ahilayapur P.S. Case No.66 of 2023 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 364A/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, charge has not yet been framed and the case is next fixed on 07.11.2025 for framing of charge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw attention of this Court towards Annexure- 4 which is the copy of the certified copy of the compromise petition filed by the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 in the court of Sessions Judge, Giridih and submits that therein it has been categorically mentioned that the dispute between the parties is regarding payment of money in respect of some transaction between the son of the informant and the petitioner and both the parties have compromised their dispute with the intervention of well wishers. In view of the compromise, the opposite party No.2-informant does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2- informant next submit that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is then submitted that an agreement has also been entered into between the parties. It is also jointly submitted that because of some misunderstanding, this case was instituted but in fact, no such occurrence as mentioned in the FIR, ever took place. It is further submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law; as in view of the compromise, the chance of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.02.2024 passed in connection with Ahilayapur P.S. Case No.66 of 2023 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, be quashed and set aside. 5. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.02.2024 passed in connection with Ahilayapur P.S. Case No.66 of 2023 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.02.2024 passed in connection with Ahilayapur P.S. Case No.66 of 2023 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. 6. 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, (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. 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. 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 offence involved in this case is not heinous offence nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case rather the same relates to private dispute between the parties regarding non-payment of money, in respect of the business transaction between the parties. 8. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal proceeding would put the petitioner 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. 9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.02.2024 passed in connection with Ahilayapur P.S. Case No.66 of 2023 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.02.2024 passed in connection with Ahilayapur P.S. Case No.66 of 2023 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, is quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.