The High Court is entitled to quash the proceedings if it came to the conclusion that the ends of justice so required: Jharkhand High Court

 1 Cr. M.P. No. 26219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 26219 Rajnish Kumar aged about 38 years S o Shri Suresh Sharma Resident of House No.51 New AG Cooperative Colony PO Kadru PS Argora District Ranchi… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand Sunil Manohar Wavikar S o Late Manohar Ramchandra Wavikar R o EPC Industries Ltd. Plot No.109 MIDC Ambad Nasik P.O. Ambad P.S … Opposite Parties Ambad District Nasik10 SCC 705 Paragraphs 7 10 18 and 19 of the said judgment are quoted herein “7. This Court has in several decisions declared that the offences under Section 320 CrPC which are not compoundable with or without the permission of the court cannot be allowed to be compounded. In Ram Lal v. State of J&K this Court referred to Section 320(9) CrPC to declare that such offences as are made compoundable under Section 320 can alone be compounded and none else. This Court declared two earlier decisions rendered in Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. and Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan to be per incuriam inasmuch as the same permitted composition of offences not otherwise compoundable under Section 320 CrPC 10. There is another line of decisions in which this Court has taken note of the compromise arrived at between the parties and quashed the prosecution in exercise of powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy this Court held that the High Court was entitled to quash the proceedings if it came to the conclusion that the ends of justice so required. This Court observed:and 6 Cr. M.P. No. 26219 also in light of the fact that the petitioners and opposite party no.2 have entered into a compromise this Court comes to a conclusion that it is a fit case to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly the F.I.R. being Argora P.S. Case No.342 2018 dated 30.10.2018 and entire criminal proceeding pursuant to that F.I.R. is hereby quashed Accordingly this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and disposed of. Ajay (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi J

Summary: The High Court has the authority to quash a proceeding if it determines that continuing the prosecution will be a violation of the court’s procedure or if the ends of justice demand that the proceeding be quashed. The preservation of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal cases, is intended to accomplish a beneficial public goal: a court case can not be used as a tool of harassment or persecution. The judgement was passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Rajnish Kumar &amp; Ors. vs The State of Jharkhand &amp; Anr. [Cr. M.P. No. 2623 of 2019] by Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi. The facts of the case are Company has appointed or selected Genesis Sale Corporation as a CNF Agent and, thereafter the Company was intending to get back its stock from the Genesis Sale Corporation, but the petitioners have refused to meet with the informant and did not return the stock. The allegation was that 390 Pumps amounting to Rs.10.48 Lakhs was with them. Subsequently, the said agreement was cancelled and the accused persons were asked to return the stock and, thereafter, F.I.R. has been lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now they have entered into a compromise and based on the said compromise, this quashing petition has been filed. They further submit that they have settled the dispute which 3 Cr. Which arising out of the business rivalry and they are willing to maintain a good relation in the interest of the business. They also submit that F.I.R. has been lodged under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., which are compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending and by the person who has been cheated. Learned counsel for the State also accepts that the law is well settled given the judgment relied on the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite party. While relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment Shiji v. Radhika, wherein it was held that that “the offences under Section 320 CrPC which are not compoundable with or without the permission of the court cannot be allowed to be compounded.” Further, it was noted that “to declare that such offences as are made compoundable under Section 320 can alone be compounded and none else.”