JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B.U. Laskar; learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. J.M. Sulaiman, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is preferred by four petitioners, namely, Fakarul Bahar, Kutubuddin Chaudhury, Rezia Begum and Peara Begum, for quashing the C.R. Case No. 947/2020, corresponding to Karimganj P.S. Case No. 1107/2020, and corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3022/20, under Sections 120(B)/406/420/384/468/471/387/34 IPC. 3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:- “The respondent No.2 got married with one Monowara Begum in the year 2003, and they were blessed with five children. The respondent No.2 has subjected Manowara Begum to both physical and mental cruelty, but she tolerated the same. Thereafter, respondent No.2 got married to one Sultana Parvin on 27.06.2020, and started neglecting Monowara Begum. Thereafter, on 01.07.2020, respondent No.2 subjected Monowara Begum to inhuman torture and caused fracture of her left leg and she became handicap. Thereafter, the petitioner No.2, 3 and 4 tried to settle the dispute amicably. But, the same bears no fruit and on 18.10.2020, the present petitioners with few family members and with members of Human Right Organization, went to the house of respondent No.2, to settle the dispute, but, the respondent No.2 and his party detained the petitioners party in his house and assaulted them and they were rescued by police later on. Then Monowara Begum had filed one FIR with the Karimganj P.S., upon which Karimganj P.S. Case No. 986/2020, u/s 498(A)/147/323/494/379/342/506 IPC has been registered. To cover up the said incident the respondent No.2 also lodged one FIR on 19.10.2020, against Monowara Begum and her family members, upon which Karimganj P.S. Case No. 987/2020, u/s 147/448/323/379/354 IPC has been registered. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 has again filed one complaint case No. 947 of 2020, before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj. The same was forwarded to the Karimganj P.S. and upon the same Karimganj P.S. Case No. 1107/2020, registered under sections 120(B)/406/420/ 384/468/471/387/34 IPC has been registered and the said case has arisen out of the same facts mentioned in Karimganj P.S. Case No. 987/2020, and against the same family members of Monowara Begum. The same was forwarded to the Karimganj P.S. and upon the same Karimganj P.S. Case No. 1107/2020, registered under sections 120(B)/406/420/ 384/468/471/387/34 IPC has been registered and the said case has arisen out of the same facts mentioned in Karimganj P.S. Case No. 987/2020, and against the same family members of Monowara Begum. As the second FIR upon the same incident, is not maintainable in the eye of law, the petitioners have approached this court by filing the present petition for quashing the FIR of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 1107/2020, arising out of C.R. Case No. 947/2020. 4. Mr. B.U. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have effected a compromise with the respondent No.2 and the matter is in between husband and wife and in the interest of the children they have decided not to proceed with the matter. Mr. Laskar further submits that the respondent No.2 also sworn an affidavit, Annexure-A, stating that he had no objection if the FIR of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 1107/2020, arising out of C.R. Case No. 947/2020 is quashed and the petitioner has enclosed the same with the additional affidavit filed before this court. Therefore, Mr. Laskar contended to allow this petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. J.M. Sulaiman, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, also submits that the parties have effected a compromise in the interest of their kith and kin and the matter is also in between husband and wife, and respondent No. 2 has sworn an affidavit (Annexure-A) to that effect, and as such the respondent No.2 has no objection in the event of allowing the petition. In the same line, the learned Additional P.P. for the State respondent also submits that since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, the state has no objection in the event of allowing the petition. 6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. 7. A cursory perusal of the additional affidavit of the petitioner and Annexure-A, enclosed there with, reveals that the matter has been settled by the parties amicably. It also appears that the respondent No.2 also has no objection in the event of quashing the FIR of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 1107/2020, arising out of C.R. Case No. 947/2020. 8. 7. A cursory perusal of the additional affidavit of the petitioner and Annexure-A, enclosed there with, reveals that the matter has been settled by the parties amicably. It also appears that the respondent No.2 also has no objection in the event of quashing the FIR of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 1107/2020, arising out of C.R. Case No. 947/2020. 8. It is to be noted here that while dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR and subsequent criminal proceeding, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 680, referring to its two earlier decisions in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 , in paragraph No. 13, held as under:- “13. 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; 9. In the case of Narinder Singh (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 to 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.” 10. Here in this case, it appears that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves. The dispute between the parties arises out of the matrimonial relationship and family disputes, which the parties have resolved amongst themselves. The respondent No.2 has also sworn an affidavit-Annexure-A, also and the petitioner has enclosed the same along with his additional affidavit. Under these circumstances, this court is of the view that allowing the petition by quashing the FIR of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 1107/2020, arising out of C.R. Case No. 947/2020, would advance the cause of justice. The respondent No.2 has also sworn an affidavit-Annexure-A, also and the petitioner has enclosed the same along with his additional affidavit. Under these circumstances, this court is of the view that allowing the petition by quashing the FIR of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 1107/2020, arising out of C.R. Case No. 947/2020, would advance the cause of justice. Further, if the proceeding is allowed to continue before the learned Court below, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. Under the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the FIR of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 1107/2020, arising out of C.R. Case No. 947/2020. 12. Accordingly, the FIR of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 1107/2020, arising out of C.R. Case No. 947/2020, stands set aside and quashed. The parties have to bear their own costs.