JUDGMENT Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. G. Tado, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, for the State respondent. 2. By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of G. R. Case No. 12/14 (State of A.P. vs. Likha Sikam & Ors.), arising out of Kimin P.S. Case No. 09/14, registered under Sections 365/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 3. The brief facts of the case can be narrated in the following manner. 4. The petitioner No. 1 had lodged an F.I.R. before the Police alleging that on 22.12.2014, the petitioner No. 2 and some other persons had forcibly taken him from Kimin to Yazali in a car. The petitioner No. 1 further alleged in the F.I.R that while he was being taken to Yazali, the petitioner No. 2 beat him with a stick and after reaching Yazali, he was taken to a house where again the petitioner No. 2 beat him. According to the petitioner No. 1, the petitioner No. 2 had handed him over to Police at Yazali. 5. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner No. 1, Police registered the case under Sections 365/323 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police, on conclusion of the investigation, filed Charge-Sheet against the petitioner No. 2 and two other persons, namely, Shri Tok Kamin and Smti Tok Mary, the petitioner Nos. 3 & 4, herein, respectively, under Sections 365 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the said Code. 6. Now, the informant/petitioner No. 1 and the other petitioners got together and filed this petition jointly praying for quashing the F.I.R. and the consequent proceeding on the ground that they have compromised and amicably settled the matter out of the Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tado, has submitted that all the petitioners are businessmen and because of some misunderstanding of facts, the case came into being. He has further submitted that though the petitioners have settled the matter between themselves, the criminal case is still proceeding before the Trial Court and it is causing immense hardship to them. 8. Tado, has submitted that all the petitioners are businessmen and because of some misunderstanding of facts, the case came into being. He has further submitted that though the petitioners have settled the matter between themselves, the criminal case is still proceeding before the Trial Court and it is causing immense hardship to them. 8. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 2 (two) decisions of the Supreme Court that was rendered in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 . 9. I have gone through the judgments of the Supreme Court. In Narinder Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court has held as under - wxyz "29.2. 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 secure: zyxw wxyz (i) Ends of justice, or zyxw wxyz (ii) To prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives." zyxw 10. In Laxmi Narayan (Supra), the Supreme Court has held as under - wxyz "While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." zyxw 11. Coming back to the case in hand, I am of the considered opinion that under the given circumstances of the case, the petitioner No. 1 deserves to be given the power to compound the offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Coming back to the case in hand, I am of the considered opinion that under the given circumstances of the case, the petitioner No. 1 deserves to be given the power to compound the offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 677 , held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise. wxyz 12. The Apex Court in the case of R has held: zyxw wxyz " We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." zyxw wxyz 13. In the result, I find that because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is no possibility of recording a conviction in future. Therefore, this is a fit case for exercising power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 12/14 (State of A.P. vs. Likha Sikan & Ors.), arising out of Kimin P.S. Case No. 09/14, registered under Sections 365/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, is quashed. zyxw 12. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.