1. By filing this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short, the Code, the petitioners pray for quashing of the FIR dated 18.3.2013 on the basis of which Satgaon P.S. Case No. 62/2013 was registered under sections 147/148/149/436/427/325, IPC. 2. Heard Mr. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for opposite party No. 1 and Mr. S.H. Sikdar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2/informant. 3. The opposite party No. 2 had lodged the ejahar in question alleging that on 18.3.2013 at around 11:00 a.m., a group consisting of 20/22 people belonging to Missing community had ransacked their residential houses and destroyed the articles inside the houses. It was also alleged that they had come armed with bows, arrows and long knives and had also set the house of one Jamaluddin on fire. 4. The instant application for quashing the FIR is filed on the ground that the parties had come to an amiable settlement on 21.04.2013. A copy of an Affidavit sworn by the opposite party No. 2 is also enclosed. 5. By filing Crl. Misc Case No. 997/2013, the opposite party No. 2/informant has also prayed for dropping the proceeding pertaining to Satgaon P.S. Case No. 62/2013 under sections 147/148/149/436/427/ 325, IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as opposite party No. 2/informant submit that as the parties have compromised the matter and as the informant is not interested to pursue the case and on the contrary, prays for dropping of the proceeding, interest of justice requires that the FIR should be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance of the following judgments : (i) B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., (2003) 4 SCO 675. (ii) Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58 . (Hi) Shiji Alias Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika andAnr., (2011) 10 SCC 705 . (iv) Dimpey Gujral v. Union Territory Through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, 2013 Crl. LJ 520. 8. Mr. Munir, learned Additional P.P., Assam submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the parties have compromised the matter, even though some of the sections are not compoundable, the High Court, in its exercise of power under section 482 of the Code, can quash the FIR. 9. LJ 520. 8. Mr. Munir, learned Additional P.P., Assam submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the parties have compromised the matter, even though some of the sections are not compoundable, the High Court, in its exercise of power under section 482 of the Code, can quash the FIR. 9. In B.S. Joshi and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Code. In Shiji Alias Patta (supra), the Apex Court, while reiterating that merely because an offence is not compoundable under section 320 of the Code, is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse to exercise power under section 482 of the Code, which power must be exercised with utmost care and caution. It was emphasized that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise the power may result in the abuse of the process of law. Taking note of the incident in question giving rise to registration of a case under section 354/394, IPC, which was sought to be quashed, it was held that incident in question had its genesis in civil dispute between the parties, which dispute had, it appeared, been resolved by them, and accordingly, the Apex Court had quashed the charge sheet. 10. In Dimpi Gujral (supra), in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the Apex Court quashed the FIR in question registered under sections 147/148/149/323/307/452/506, IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the final report presented under section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra), the Apex Court had laid down that it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes and if the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, for the purpose of securing ends of justice, section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or subsequent criminal proceedings. 11. The allegations made in the FIR in the instant case show that the offences are not heinous offences depicting gross depravity. 11. The allegations made in the FIR in the instant case show that the offences are not heinous offences depicting gross depravity. The offences are of personal nature and not against the society. The parties have buried the hatchet, thus, bringing about peace and amity between the two sides. It also appears from the affidavit of opposite party No. 2 annexed with the petition that the dispute between the people of Rahmat Nagar and Jonki Panoi village have been settled on 21.4.2013. Thus, it would appear that the incident has its origin in some kind of civil dispute, which, it appears, has been resolved. 12. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the light of the discussions above, I am of the considered opinion that the FIR requires a quietus for ends of justice. Taking that view, I am inclined to exercise the powers under section 482 of the Code to quash the FIR in Satgaon P.S. Case No. 62/2013 under sections 147/148/149/436/427/325, IPC, which I, accordingly do. 13. The revision petition, accordingly, stands allowed. No Costs.