JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. I.A. No.2282 of 2026 Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to amend the instant Cr.M.P. by substituting paragraph-5 to 7 of instant Cr.M.P. with the one as proposed in paragraph-5 of the instant interlocutory application by substituting the same with bold letters as mentioned in paragraph-5 of this I.A. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has made averment in this Cr.M.P that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but in fact the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. of this case and the petitioner therein is named as ‘Amit Singh.’ It is further submitted that the amendment is necessitated because of the statements unintentionally and inadvertently made at para- 5 to 7 of the main application. It is also submitted that the proposed amendment will not change the nature and character of this criminal miscellaneous petition and unless the same is allowed, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. 3. Considering the facts of the case, the prayer to carry out the proposed amendments as prayed for in the instant interlocutory application, is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the amended Cr.M.P., the copy of which has already been served upon the learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 5. Let the copy of the amended Cr.M.P., be kept in the record. 6. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed. Cr.M.P. No.111 of 2026 This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. lodged in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Latehar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of Balumath P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 is still going on and charge has not yet been framed in the said case. 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of Balumath P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 is still going on and charge has not yet been framed in the said case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2/informant jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.17464 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the opposite party No.2/informant and the petitioner and submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that both the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and there is no grievance between the parties. It is next jointly submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant/opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute having a civil flavour and no public policy is involved in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the 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 F.I.R. of Balumath P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 which is now pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Latehar, be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the F.I.R. of Balumath P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 which is now pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Latehar. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 is involved in this case rather the same relates to civil dispute between the parties. 7. 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 case 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. 8. 8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the F.I.R. of Balumath P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 which is now pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Latehar, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above. 9. Accordingly, the F.I.R. of Balumath P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 which is now pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Latehar, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 11. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.17464 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly.