JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Ms. D. Yoka, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. K. Tado, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. By the application under section 482 of the Cr.PC, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the charge-sheet No.238/2015 dated 5.10.2015 under section 279 of the IPC read with section 181 of the MV Act arising out of Itanagar P.S Case No.23/2015, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Itanagar Capital Complex, Yupia. As per the FIR dated 27.1.2015, it is the allegation of the informant that on 26.1.2015 at about 11 p.m., one Swift Desire Car bearing registration No.AR 01-D-6190, on being driven full speed and in negligent manner; had hit the car of the informant which was parked nearby. Based on the aforesaid FIR, a charge-sheet bearing No.238/2015 dated 5.10.2015 had been submitted by the investigating authorities. In the charge-sheet, it has been stated that in course of investigation of the case, the alleged driver Mr. Tape Ronya was examined and he had admitted that the incident had occurred, not for any other reason, but as he had lost control over the vehicle while driven on the NH 52A. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner had been charge-sheeted on the ground that it had been found that due to rash and negligent driving on his part, the said incident had occurred. 3. It has also been brought on record that in the meantime, there is a deed of agreement between the informant and the accused petitioner dated 4.1.2017. As per the said agreement, it has been stated that the accused petitioner had already compensated the informant by repairing the car to the full satisfaction of the informant and that both the parties have amicably settled the matter with each other with free will and consent and as such, the informant does not want to pursue the criminal case any further and he has no objection, if the said FIR in question is quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon paragraph 29.1 of the said judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it is provided that the power conferred under section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under section 320 of the Code. But, no doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. 5. In paragraph 29.2, it has further been provided that when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. 6. In paragraph 29.5, it has also been provided that while exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice. 7. 6. In paragraph 29.5, it has also been provided that while exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice. 7. In the background of the aforesaid law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court, when the facts of this present petition is taken into consideration and also in view of the fact that the allegations against the petitioner was trivial in nature, inasmuch as, he had lost control and consequently hit the car of the complainant from behind and damaged it and also taking into consideration that in the meantime, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by entering into a deed of agreement wherein the informant agrees that the petitioner had adequately compensated the informant by repairing the car and also the informant does not want to further pursue with the matter, this court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the FIR dated 27.1.2015 and also the resultant charge sheet No. 238/2015 dated 5.10.2015 resulting in GR Case No. 65/2015 under section 279, IPC read with section 181, MV Act, pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Itanagar Capital Complex, Yupia is quashed, Also any continuation or the criminal proceeding also may not result in a continuation, as the informant himself had entered an agreement with the petitioner that he does not want to pursue the matter any further. 8. Accordingly, the FIR dated 27.1.2015 as well as the charge sheet No.238/2015 dated 5.10.2015 submitted by the investigating authorities in Itanagar P.S Case No.23/2015 under section 279, IPC read with section 181, MV Act resulting in GR case No.65/2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Itanagar Capital Complex, Yupia is hereby quashed. 9. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.