JUDGMENT Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This petition has been filed seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, East Sikkim at Gangtok under Section 354, Cr. P. C. These proceedings arise out of an FIR No. 69 of 2011 registered on 13-6-2011 with the Sadar Police Station, Gangtok under Sections 447/354/323 of the I. P. C. 4. The petitioner No.2, who was working in the office of the husband of petitioner No.1, had lodged the aforementioned FIR against the petitioner No.1. The police on Investigation filed the charge-sheet under abovementioned Sections. However, at the time of framing the charge, the trial Court vide its order dated 19-6-2012 framed the charge only under Section 354, IPC and the case was set for trial. 5. It seems that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties entered into a mutual settlement to dispel their misunderstandings and settle their disputes and to live in peace. A formal Deed of Compromise has been drawn between the parties on 23-6-2012, a copy whereof has been placed on record along with this petition. 6. From the perusal of the compromise document, it appears that with a view to maintain a cordial relation and to live in peace, the parties have entered into a compromise. Admittedly, the offence for which the petitioner No.1 has been charged is non-compoundable. However, the parties agreed to forgive each other and have filed this joint petition for quashing the criminal proceedings. 7. The question whether the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offence can be quashed on the basis of mutual agreement between the parties has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases, particular reference can be made to judgment in B. S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 : ( AIR 2003 SC 1386 ) : (2003 Cri LJ 2028). In a recent judgment reported as AIR 2012 SC 499 : (2002 Cri LJ 840) Shiji alias Palppu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr., the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined almost the entire law on the subject and has reiterated that the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. In a recent judgment reported as AIR 2012 SC 499 : (2002 Cri LJ 840) Shiji alias Palppu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr., the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined almost the entire law on the subject and has reiterated that the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is competent to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of mutual settlement between the parties, particularly, where the High Court is of the opinion that the quashment would be in the larger interest of the parties and for maintenance of peace. 8. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. 9. The criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the judicial Magistrate, First Class, East Sikkim at Gangtok in G. R. Case No. 54 of 2011 (State of Sikkim v. Champa Devi Sharma) under Section 354 of IPC are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.