JUDGMENT : This petition is preferred by 3(three) petitioners namely, Shri Kamta Tawe, S/o Lt. Sangbio Tawe of A-Section, Naharlaun (petitioner No. 1), Smt. Rani Jomoh Tawe, W/o Shri Kamta Tawe of A-Sector, Naharlagun, and Smt. Tame Yajum, W/o Shri Dare Tatung of Polo Colony, Naharlagun, jointly, for invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the Criminal Proceeding of G.R. case No.534/2017, under section 353/323/427/34 IPC, corresponding to Itanagar Women P.S. Case No.80/2017, which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia. 2. The factual background leading to filing of this Criminal Petition is adumbrated herein below:- “In the year 2017, the petitioner No.3, while she was working as Extra-Assistant Commissioner in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar, carried out eviction drive of structures including half constructed building of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, located at Chandranagar area of Itanagar, in order to facilitate construction of National Highway No. 415. She did the eviction drive in lawful discharging of her official duty. Thereafter, on 04.09.2017, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, visited her Office Chamber at the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar and confronted her in connection with demolishing their structures without paying compensation, which is followed by minor scuffle. Then the petitioner No. 3, lodged one FIR on the same day before the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 alleging verbal abuse and physical assault; upon which Itanagar Women P.S. case No. 80/2017, under Sections 354/353/323/331 IPC read with Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, was registered. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and the same culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet No. 105/2018, dated 18.09.2018, under Sections 354/353/323/34 Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia, framed charges against the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 under Sections 353/323/427/34 IPC vide order dated 16.01.2020 and the accused petitioner Nos.1 & 2 pleaded not guilty to the same. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia, framed charges against the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 under Sections 353/323/427/34 IPC vide order dated 16.01.2020 and the accused petitioner Nos.1 & 2 pleaded not guilty to the same. The accused petitioner No.1 also lodged one counter FIR, dated 04.09.2019, against the petitioner No.3 before the Officer-in-charge, Itanagar Police Station, which was registered as Itanagar Women P.S. case No.107/2017, under Sections 509/323 IPC, corresponding G.R. Case No.712/2017 and the same case was also culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet No.89/2018, under Sections 509/323 Indian Penal Code. But, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 10.01.2020 discharged the petitioner No.3 in the said case. Thereafter, one Criminal Revision Petition No. 03/2020 is filed by the petitioner No.1 against the aforesaid discharged order, before the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia and the same is pending for hearing. The Petitioner No.1 also preferred one Writ Petition, being WP(C) 729/2017, before this Court, against the State of Arunachal Pradesh, challenging the eviction of structures and non-payment of compensation and in the meantime, she was paid the compensation amount and the matter was amicably settled following which the petitioner No. 1 has withdrawn the Writ Petition. The above noted Criminal Proceedings were arisen only out of non-payment of compensation amount and it becomes aggravated because of miscommunication and misunderstanding between the parties and after payment of compensation, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have no grievance what so ever, against the petitioner No. 3 and they have settled their dispute amicably in a meeting held in presence of their close relative on 10.07.2021 at Naharlagun and after discussion they have executed one mutual agreement for settlement on the same day and thereafter, they had approached this Court for quashing the proceeding of G.R. case No.534/2017, under sections 353/223/427/34 Indian Penal Code”. 3. We have heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Ete, the learned Addl. P.P., for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 4. Mr. R. Sonar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that all the differences between the petitioners, arose on account of non-payment of compensation amount to the demolished structures of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 by the petitioner No. 3 and with payment of compensation by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to the petitioner Nos. 4. Mr. R. Sonar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that all the differences between the petitioners, arose on account of non-payment of compensation amount to the demolished structures of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 by the petitioner No. 3 and with payment of compensation by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, they have no grievance now and have settled their dispute amicably and entered into an agreement and, therefore, Mr. Sonar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Criminal Proceedings pending against the petitioners may be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C, since the offence under section 353 IPC cannot be compounded in view of section 320 IPC. Mr. Sonar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has further submitted that the offences are trivial in nature and not against the society also and in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the criminal proceeding, pending between the parties, may be quashed. Mr. Sonar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, also referred the Case Law of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 . 5. On the other hand, Mr. T. Ete, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that since the parties have already settled their disputes and entered into an agreement and no longer willing to proceed with the case, the State has no objection if the petition is allowed by quashing the proceeding by this Court. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, we have gone through the documents placed on record carefully and also gone through the record of the learned Court below. The proceeding of G.R. Case No. 534/2017, under Sections 353/323/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code is sought to be quashed on the basis of the Deed of Agreement, dated 10.07.2021, between the parties, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure 7. A perusal of the same reveals that they have settled all their differences and withdrawn the other cases pending in different Courts between them and they have put their respective signatures in the agreement in presence of witnesses. A perusal of the same reveals that they have settled all their differences and withdrawn the other cases pending in different Courts between them and they have put their respective signatures in the agreement in presence of witnesses. It also appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia, has framed charge against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 under Sections 353/323/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It also appears that out of these offences, only one offence, i.e. section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable. Rests of the offences are compoundable. Since the parties, i.e. the complainant and the victim, have settled their differences and no longer willing to proceed with their case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., can be invoked. 7. In Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held 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 secure: (i) Ends of justice, or (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.” Further, in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:- “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 en extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal cases.” 8. Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the Case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra) has held that:- “while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable 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.” 9. In the case in hand, since the complainant/petitioner No. 3 has already entered into an agreement with the accused/petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, there is remote chance of implicating the accused with the offence. The possibility of conviction becomes bleak and continuing with the proceeding would cause great prejudice and injustice to the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. Moreover, the offences are not against the society. It is of private and trivial in nature. Cases and counter cases between the parties have also been settled in view of the settlement agreement. Petitioner No.1 & 2 has no antecedent of criminal activities also. And as such, ends of justice would be meted out if the proceeding, pending between the parties is quashed and also it will prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 10. Thus, having considered the submission of learned Advocates of both sides and also considering the facts and circumstances of the record and further considering the principle of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (Supra) and in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (Supra), the proceeding of G.R. Case No.534/2017, under Sections 353/323/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia, stands set aside and quashed. 11. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of.