JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. I. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. By this criminal petition, petitioners are praying for quashing of FIR of Diyun P.S. Case No.07/2019 under Sections 341/352/323/506/171F/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) corresponding to Diyun P.S. Case No.07/19 under Sections 341/352/323/506/171F/34 and G. R. Case No. 112/2019. 3. The criminal case was initiated by an FIR lodged by the petitioner No.1 against the petitioners No.2 and 3 contending an interalia that on 10.04.2019 at about 8:30 AM the petitioner No.3 along with two unknown political workers forcefully brought petitioner No.1 to the petitioner No.2’s campaign office located at Avoipur near Diyun Bazaar. At that time, the petitioner No.2, Shri Nikh Kamin held him (petitioner No.1) by his shirt’s collar with the help of other two unknown person who also held him while the petitioner No.2 had assaulted him. When he (petitioner No.1) pleaded with him, the petitioner No.2 confronted him with allegations of defection, and also threatened him with dire consequences in case he fails to support him by diverting voters in his (petitioner No.2’s) favour. The petitioner No.2 and 3 also held him captive for about half an hour but somehow, petitioner No.1 managed to escape. Only on the basis of the FIR lodged by petitioner No.1, the aforesaid mentioned case was registered. 4. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioner No.2 and 3 under P.S. Case No. 06/2020 under Sections 341/352/323/506/171F/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is also submitted that all the offences are compoundable except Section 171F of the IPC. Both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and an agreement was executed between petitioner No.1, 2 and 3. Their agreement is annexed as annexure-V along with the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is also further submitted that although all the offences are not compoundable, the offences are not grave as imprisonment is only for one year or fine under Section 171F of the IPC. The other offences are compoundable. 5. The learned additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that criminal case can be quashed after following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Laxmi Narayan, reported in AIR 2019 SC 1296 . 6. The other offences are compoundable. 5. The learned additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that criminal case can be quashed after following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Laxmi Narayan, reported in AIR 2019 SC 1296 . 6. I have considered the submissions at the bar. 7. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Laxmi Narayan, reported in AIR 2019 SC 1296 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that instant case falls within the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. For ready reference, paragraph-13 of State of Madhya Pradesh & 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. 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. 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/delicate 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 impart 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 instant case the petitioner No.2 is an eligible candidate for 49thBordumsa-Diyun Legislative Assembly Constituency from the Nationalist People’s Party and the petitioner No.1 was supporting an independent candidate for the same Constituency. Due to disagreement between petitioner No.1 and petitioner 2 a minor dispute flared up and resulted in the aforementioned criminal case. The petitioner No.1 was examined by the medical officer and according to the opinion of the medical officer no external injuries were detected on his examination. Due to disagreement between petitioner No.1 and petitioner 2 a minor dispute flared up and resulted in the aforementioned criminal case. The petitioner No.1 was examined by the medical officer and according to the opinion of the medical officer no external injuries were detected on his examination. The medical report is annexed as annexure-2 series along with the petition. 10. The petitioner No.3 was arrested on 10.11.2019 and was released on bail on the same date. At present, the aforementioned case is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Changlang and the petitioner No.2 and 3 are to face trial. It is submitted that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012)9 JT 457 that “ Inherent power is of a wide plentitude. It has to be observed and has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to end the abuse of the process of the court”. 11. In the instant case, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and they have executed a written agreement. With regard to the amicable settlement, the agreement is to withdraw the aforementioned case. The political rivalry has flared up to such an extent that a case was registered against the petitioner No.2 and 3. However, I have considered the nature and gravity of the offence. The alleged offence is not hideous and serious offence regarding the mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. 12. The aggrieved has voluntarily settled the dispute. The offence appears to be predominantly private in nature and restricted between the parties. Further proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the Court because possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. This Court is of the considered opinion that this Court can invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing the criminal case against the petitioner No.2 and 3. Therefore, criminal case G.R No.112/2019and corresponding Diyun P.S. Case No.07/2019 under Sections 341/352/323/506/171F/34 IPC pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Changlang is hereby quashed. 13. The criminal petition is allowed.