JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for exercising/invoking the inherent power of this Court for compounding of non-compoundable offences between the petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 for quashing of the FIR No.13/2019 dated 30.01.2019, under Section 304-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Charge-Sheet No. 158/20 dated 08.10.2020, which was submitted on 16.03.2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia. 3. A brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition is indicated below:- “The petitioner No. 2 is running a school in the name of Green Park Residential School at Lower Model village, Lekhi at Naharlagun and was functioning for last 4(four) years. On the faithful day of 29.01.2019 the son of the petitioner No. 1 had fallen from the third floor of the school and accordingly, an FIR has been registered against the petitioner No. 2 and her teachings staffs under Section 304-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, during the investigation a Peace Committee was constituted by the parties in order to avoid the escalation animosity between the parties as there was no intention to cause death on the part of the petitioners’ No. 2, 3, 4, & 5. Accordingly, a Peace Committee conducted a meeting on 25.04.2019 under the chairmanship of Shri Bimbo Raji. After the thread bare deliberation by the 10(ten) members present in the meeting amicably settled the matter outside the Court with a suitable terms and conditions enshrined in the minutes of the meeting. In compliance with the minutes of the meeting dated 25.04.2019, the petitioners herein entered into an agreement of Deed of Settlement on 06.05.2019. As the petitioners have already settled their matter amicably outside the Court and they have been living peacefully without any personal grudge, enmity and differences with each other and based upon the same, this present petition was filed before this Court for invoking the extra-ordinary, discretionary and inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceeding of the aforesaid case pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia, Papum Pare District.” 4. Mr. P.C. for quashing the proceeding of the aforesaid case pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia, Papum Pare District.” 4. Mr. Loyi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case arose out of the FIR dated 30.01.2019, filed by the petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner No. 2 stating interalia that on 29.01.2019, his son Genno Hangkar, aged about 7(seven) years who was studied at class-II had fallen from the third floor of the Green Park Residential School, Lower Model village, Naharlagun, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh. In the said FIR, the informant/complainant alleged that the petitioner No. 2 and her teaching staffs are responsible for, their sheer negligence and recklessness which causes death of his son. Accordingly, on receipt of the said written FIR, the Officer-in-Charge registered the Naharlagun P.S. Case No 13/19 dated 30.01.2019, under Section 304-A/34 of IPC and endorsed the matter to sub-Inspector S. S. Jha for investigation. 5. Mr. Loyi, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that during the pendency of the investigation, a Peace Committee was constituted by both the parties in order to avoid the further escalation of animosities between the parties, as there was no intention to cause death on the part of the petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5. Accordingly, a peace committee conducted a meeting on 25.04.2019 under the chairmanship of Shri Bimbo Raji. Mr. Loyi, further stated that the parties have already settled their matter amicably outside the Court by signing a Deed of Settlement dated 06.05.2019 before the Executive Magistrate, Itanagar Capital Complex. As per the Deed of Settlement, the petitioner No. 1 agreed to withdraw the FIR dated 30.01.2019 under Section 304-A/34 IPC as it was negligence on the part of the school management and he has no grievances against the petitioner No. 2 and thereby not going to pursue the case which was registered before the Naharlagun Police Station. Therefore, the petitioner No. 1 is no longer willing to pursue the matter and they are living peacefully and at present, the petitioner No. 1 has no grudge against the petitioner No. 2 and therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , in support of his submissions. 6. Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that as the parties have settled their disputes amicably and no longer willing to proceed with the case and as they have also entered into one deed of amicable settlement, the State has no objection in the event of allowing the petition. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the petition and the documents placed on record received from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. It appears from the case record of the learned Court below that it was merely an accidental case. The son of the petitioner No. 1 died while deceased (Genno Hangkar) was playing at the railing of the stairs on the third floor and from there he fell down. 8. Now, the only issue to be decided here in this case is as to “whether this is a fit case wherein this Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 under G. R. Case No. 50/2019, under Sections 304-A/34 of IPC”. 9. In the case in hand, during the pendency of the trial, it appears that both the parties have entered into amicable settlement and executed one deed of mutual settlement with some terms and conditions, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-3. For ready reference, the terms and conditions of the said settlement deed is extracted herein below: “1. That, Smti Yating Byaling (representing Second Parties) being Chairperson-cum-Owner of the Green Park Residential School shall pay sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) to Shri Rajen Hangkar (First Party) within 10(Ten) days as to compensate in respect of the costs for building cemetery in the memory of Late Genno Hangkar. 2. That, on receipt of the compensation within 10(Ten) days the First Party shall immediately take all action to obtain withdrawal dismissal of all the legal actions and proceedings against the Second Party. 2. That, on receipt of the compensation within 10(Ten) days the First Party shall immediately take all action to obtain withdrawal dismissal of all the legal actions and proceedings against the Second Party. In view of that, the first party shall release the Second Party and her school administration from any liability in respect of the allegations alleged by the First Party in regard to Naharlagun P. S. Case No.13/19 under Section 304-A/34 of IPC. 3. That, the parties shall voluntarily release and forever discharge each other, to the full extent permitted by law, of and from any and all claims known and unknown, asserted and unasserted that either party may have against the other as of date, for that reasons, both parties shall agree to settle the dispute without further referring the matter in future and it shall not be raised by both parties again. 4. That, 10(ten) Members Committee shall be the witnesses in any proceedings in connection with this case till dismissal of the case. 5. That, the Committee also categorically made it clear that, the terms and condition decided by the Peace Committee here be treated as exceptional and special, as such it shall not be treated as precedent in deciding other similarly situated cases as per prevailing customary practices in the society. 6. That, this deed of agreement will be used as a piece of evidence and record as and when situation arises and will have binding affect on the parties.” 10. As per the Deed of Agreement, the petitioner No. 1 agreed to withdraw the FIR dated 30.01.2019 under Section 304-A/34 of IPC as it was negligence on the part of the school management and he has no grievances against the petitioner No. 2 and thereby not going to pursue the case which was registered before the Naharlagun Police Station. 11. It is to be noted here that in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that in respect of the non-compoundable offences, the power under Section 482 can be invoked if the case is private in nature and if the same do not have a serious impact on the society and also if there is any settlement or compromise between the victim and the offender. However, conduct of the accused is also to be considered. 12. However, conduct of the accused is also to be considered. 12. For ready reference, paragraph No. 13 of the Laxmi Narayan (supra) is extracted herein below: “13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) 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.” 13. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, 3, 4 & 5 have settled their matter amicably and the entire incident took place accidently. They have entered into a settlement deed on 16.05.2019 conducted by the Peace Committee and based upon the same, they have approached this Court for quashing the proceeding pending before the Court of learned Judicial Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 14. It is seen that the learned Court below has already issued summon under Naharlagun P.S. Case No.13/2019, u/s 304-A/34 of IPC against the accused persons namely, Yating Byaling (petitioner No.2), Sanjiv Korkoria (petitioner No.4) and Loli Kahiri (petitioner No.5) but it reveals from Final Report that the name of the petitioner No. 3, Shri Pissa Shakti has not been charge-sheeted as during the time of offence he was not affiliated with the school in any capacity. 15. 15. In view of above and also considering the mutual settlement between the parties in presence of 10 members of the Peace Committee, I find that ends of justice would be meted out if the petition is allowed. Further, since the matter has already been settled between the petitioners, it is unlikely that the petitioner No. 1 will depose against the petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, if the proceeding is allowed to continue and in that event allowing the proceeding to continue before the learned Court below, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 16. Under the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is fit case where the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceeding pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The FIR of Naharlagun P.S Case No. 13/2019, and Charge-Sheet No. 158/2020, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 50/2019, under Sections 304-A/34 of IPC, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, Papum Pare District, stands set aside and quashed. 17. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. 18. Send down the case record to the learned Court concerned forthwith.