JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 148/99, dated 03.10.1999, registered under Sections 325/452 of the Indian Penal Code, and also to quash the Charge-Sheet No. 79/1999, dated 11.10.1999, under Sections 325/452 of the Indian Penal Code, and the corresponding G.R. Case No. 155/1999, presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Yupia, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the present petition, is that on 03.10.1999, Smti Kabita Dutta, petitioner No. 1 herein, lodged one F.I.R. with the Itanagar Police Station, to the effect that on the same day, at around 5.30 p.m., the petitioner No. 3 (Shri Jasbir Singh) came with a sword and broke the lower bolt of their door and assaulted her husband- Shri Nilomony Dutta, petitioner No. 2 herein, and as a result, left hand of the petitioner No. 2 was seriously injured and he was also hospitalized at R. K. Mission Hospital, Itanagar. Upon receipt of the said F.I.R., the Officer-In-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, registered a criminal case against the petitioner No. 3, being Itanagar P.S. Case No. 148/1999, under Sections 325/452 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is to be noted here that at the time of lodging of the F.I.R., the petitioner No. 3 was working as a Sweeper, C.C.W, A.I.R, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, and the petitioner No. 2, husband of the petitioner No. 1, was working as a Driver in the Officer of the C.C.W (Electrical) Department, A.I.R., Itanagar. 5. The I.O., after completion of investigation, filed Charge-Sheet against the accused/petitioner No. 3, vide Charge-Sheet No. 79/99, under Sections 325/442 of the Indian Penal Code, dated 11.10.1999, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. The petitioner No. 3, accordingly, appeared before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, and thereafter, the learned Court below fixed the matter on 16.11.2022 for consideration of charges. 6. The petitioner No. 3, being the staff of the C.C.W, A.I.R, Itanagar, shared the same government quarter where both the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were also residing. The petitioner No. 3, accordingly, appeared before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, and thereafter, the learned Court below fixed the matter on 16.11.2022 for consideration of charges. 6. The petitioner No. 3, being the staff of the C.C.W, A.I.R, Itanagar, shared the same government quarter where both the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were also residing. On 03.10.199, at around 5.30 p.m., the petitioner No. 3, when returning back from his office, saw both the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 assaulting his son on the top stair of the building. He got angry and took his sword and went towards the room of the petitioner No. 2 and during the course of altercation, the petitioner No. 2 sustained injury on his hand. But, later on, the matter was amicably settled amongst the petitioners and they also executed one Deed of Mutual Settlement on 10.09.2022 signifying that the differences have been resolved and there is no more enmity and grievances amongst the petitioners. The Informant and the victim also do not desire to pursue the case any further, which is presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, Papum Pare District, as G.R. Case No. 155/1999. Except Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable offence as per Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that from the fact of the case, it is evident that the case is purely private in nature and it has no other social implications and all the petitioners have already entered into a mutual settlement agreement and hence, there is little chance of convicting the petitioner No. 3, rather the proceeding will unnecessarily consume the time of the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the occurrence took place only after a quarrel between the children of 2 (two) families and the petitioners have already settled the matter amicably amongst themselves and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, the informant and the victim of this case, are not willing to proceed with the case any further. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the occurrence took place only after a quarrel between the children of 2 (two) families and the petitioners have already settled the matter amicably amongst themselves and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, the informant and the victim of this case, are not willing to proceed with the case any further. As the matter has already been settled between the parties, if the present petition is not allowed quashing the criminal proceeding, the petitioner No. 3 will suffer from irreparable loss and injury if he has to face the further trial of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gyan 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. 8. In this context, Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the dispute is purely private in nature and as the parties have already arrived at a mutual settlement and they are no longer willing to proceed with the case, the State has no objection in the event of allowing the petition or quashing the criminal proceeding. 9. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the petition, documents and the LCR, which has been received from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 10. It appears from the case record that the petitioner No. 3- Shri Jasbir Singh has already appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, and the case is pending at the stage of consideration of charges. Further, from the deed of mutual agreement, it is seen that the parties have already entered into a mutual settlement on 10.09.2022, i.e. before the date fixed by the learned Court below for consideration of charges. 11. Therefore, the only issued to be decided is as to “whether this is fit case wherein this Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner No. 3 under G.R. Case No. 155/1999, under Sections 325/452 of the Indian Penal Code?” 12. 11. Therefore, the only issued to be decided is as to “whether this is fit case wherein this Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner No. 3 under G.R. Case No. 155/1999, under Sections 325/452 of the Indian Penal Code?” 12. In the instant case, it is seen that at the stage of framing of charges, both the parties have approached this Court by filing the present petition for quashing the proceeding after entering into a mutual agreement settlement deed and as per the deed of mutual settlement, they have amicably solved the matters many years back and first parties have no resentment or grievances against the second party and as such, they have approached this Court with the present petition for quashing the criminal proceeding. 13. For ready reference, Clause No. 3 of the Deed of Settlement is extracted herein below: “3. That, though now the Itanagar Police has submitted charge sheet no. 179/99 dated 11.10.1999 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, however, since, the matter/issue was amicably solved many years back, therefore, through this settlement, it is known to all that, the First Parties has no resentment or grievances against the Second Party. As such, this agreement is being made for the purpose of facilitating to approach the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench, Naharlagun for compounding the aforementioned criminal case arising out of Itanagar PS Case no. 148/1999, U/S 325/452 IPC, Charge Sheet no. 179/99 dated 11.10.1999, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia as GR No. 181/99.” 14. 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. 15. For ready reference, paragraph No. 13 of the Laxmi Narayan (supra) is extracted herein below: “13. However, conduct of the accused is also to be considered. 15. 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.” 16. In the present case, it is seen that the incident occurred only after a quarrel between the children of the parties and both the parties have already settled their dispute amicably many years back outside the Court and they have also executed one Deed of Settlement on 10.09.2022. As per the said settlement agreement deed, both the parties have resolved the matter amicably and hence the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are not willing to proceed with the case any further and hence, they have jointly approached this Court with the present petition. 17. In view of above and also considering the mutual settlement between the parties and further considering the other aspects of the case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be meted out if the petition is allowed. 17. In view of above and also considering the mutual settlement between the parties and further considering the other aspects of the case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be meted out if the petition is allowed. Further, as the matter has already been settled between the parties/petitioners, it is more unlikely that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 will depose against the petitioner No. 3 if the proceeding is allowed to continue, rather it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 18. Under the above facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that this is a 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The F.I.R. of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 148/99, dated 03.10.1999, registered under Sections 325/452 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Charge-Sheet No. 79/1999, dated 11.10.1999, under Sections 325/452 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 155/1999, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Yupia, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh, stands set aside and quashed. 19. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.