IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 2457 of 2024 1. Sushil Kumar Singh, age about 42 years, S/o Kapil Dev Singh, resident of near Samudayik Bhawan, Raj ground, Katras More, P.O & P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad 2. Rishu Kumar Singh, age about 30 years, S/o Mahendra Singh, resident of New Delhi Colony, near Hanuman Mandir, Bera, P.O, P.S and District Dhanbad 3. Sanjay Kumar, age 40 years, S/o Dhruv Pratap, resident of village Itawa, Tejpur, P.O and P.S. Madar Bhari, District Ambedkar Nagar, State Uttar Pradesh --- --- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mahesh Lilo Gope, son of Lilo Gope, Resident of Apilto, P.O Apilto, P.S. Bishnugarh, District Hazaribag --- --- Opp. Parties --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate --- 04 / 25.02.2025 Petitioners Sushil Kumar Singh, Rishu Kumar Singh and Sanjay Kumar have filed this application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 179 of 2023 in which cognizance has been taken under sections 386, 406, 417, 420, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the petitioners is that the opposite party no. 2 has purchased a LPK truck bearing registration no. JH 02 AW 0496 for a consideration amount of Rs. 30.00 lakhs which was financed by Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Bokaro. Subsequently, opposite party no. 2 sold the vehicle to the petitioners for a consideration amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Agreement between the parties was that the petitioners will deposit the EMI to the Financer. It is further case of the petitioners that after the vehicle was transferred to the petitioners, petitioners failed to pay the monthly installments to the financer and when the opposite party no. 2 requested them to do so, they threatened him of dire consequences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties have settled the dispute. It was further submitted that the petitioners have deposited all the installments to the financer and has obtained no objection certificate. 2. 4. Mr. Krishna Prajapati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, has also submitted that the parties have settled the dispute. 5. Offence under section 386 of the Indian Penal Code is non- compoundable in nature, whereas offence under section 406, 417 and 420 is compoundable in nature. It appears from the entire facts of this case that no case under section 386 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Furthermore, the parties have compromised this case. Fate of the case is well known. Allowing the criminal case to proceed will be an abuse of the judicial process. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, this court is inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. and permits the parties to compound the case. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 179 of 2023, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag is quashed. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded