ORDER : This application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is jointly preferred by the petitioners, namely, Shri Daniel Kakki and Mrs. Yai Nyokir Kakki, who are husband and wife, for quashing the FIR, dated 15.05.2020, of Pasighat Police P.S. Case No. 77/2020, registered under Section 498(A) of the IPC. 2. It is to be mentioned here that Pasighat P.S. Case No. 77/2020 registered under Section 498(A) of the IPC has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by the petitioner No. 2/Mrs. Yai Nyokir Kakki on 15.05.2020, for subjecting her to cruelty by the petitioner No. 1. 3. The factual background leading to filing of this petition is adumbrated hereinbelow:- “The petitioner No. 2/Mrs. Yai Nyokir Kakki got married with the petitioner No. 1 on 21.01.2020 and thereafter lived together as husband and wife. After 3 (three) months, 24 days, the petitioner No. 1 used to subject the petitioner No.2 to both physically and mental cruelty. He also used to abuse her verbally every day, and some time in front of family members, and he also tried to throw acid on her and often terrorised by warning that he will inject poisons to kill her. Then on 09.05.2020, he started beating her till she bleed from her nose and ear over a petty issue. He also warned her that if she complained to anyone, he will kill her and all her family members. Thereafter, her guardian rescued her from the house of the petitioner No. 1 and provided medical treatment to her and she used to stay with her guardian. But there also he used to harass her mentally by sending abusive messages”. 4. Upon the aforesaid FIR, the Officer-in-Charge, Pasighat Police Station registered a case, being Pasighat P.S. Case No.77/, under section 498(A) of the IPC and investigate the same. And while the case was pending for finalization, the petitioners have settled the matter amicably between them at the intervention of their family members and well wishers and executed one Settlement Deed and on the basis of the said Settlement Deed both the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the FIR of Pasighat P.S. Case No. 77/2020, registered under Section 498(A) of the IPC. 5. I have heard the learned Advocates of both sides. 6. Mr. 5. I have heard the learned Advocates of both sides. 6. Mr. K. Dabi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are husband and wife and out of misunderstanding, the petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint before the Pasighat Police Station, on the basis of which Pasighat P.S. Case No. 77/2020 under Section 498(A) of the IPC has been registered and being investigated and pending investigation, both the petitioners have arrived at a settlement and also executed a settlement deed and on the basis of the same, they have approached this Court for quashing the aforesaid FIR of Pasighat P.S. Case No. 77/2020, registered under Section 498(A) of the IPC. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 498A is not compoundable and since the matter is private in nature and in between husband and wife, it is contended to allow the petition by quashing and setting aside the aforesaid FIR. 7. On the other hand, Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. PP submits that since the matter is between the husband and wife and since the matter is private in nature and since the parties have settled the disputes amicably and living together as husband and wife the State has no objection in the event of allowing the petition by this court. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also carefully gone through the Case Diary produced by the learned Addl. PP before this Court. 9. Perusal of the Case Diary reveals that during the investigation, the I.O. of the case has examined the witnesses and also got the victim examined by the Doctor and collected the report and investigation has almost been completed and the case is pending for submission of final form. It also appears from the medical report of the victim i.e. the petitioner No.2, that injuries sustained by her are simple in nature. It also appears from the medical report of the victim i.e. the petitioner No.2, that injuries sustained by her are simple in nature. Further, it appears from the Settlement Deed, which is annexed with the petition, that the petitioner No.1 has assured that he will never repeat such act of violence upon the petitioner No.2 in future and that the petitioner No. 2 will perform her duty as the wife of the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1 will take care of the daily expenditures of the petitioner No. 2 and will provide shelter, protection to the petitioner No. 2 and they will stay as husband and wife with their family so as to gain love and affection from them. 10. It is to be mentioned here that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh-vs-State of Punjab; reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has observed that power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation, but, it has to be exercised in accordance with guideline engrafted in such power viz : (1) to secure the ends of justice; (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. 11. Further, it has been observed that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly of civil flavour, stand on a different footing for the purpose of quashing, particularly, the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute and in this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings it in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 12. 12. Similar observation has also been made in its later decisions i.e. in the case of Narinder Singh-vs-State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 and in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh-vs.-Laxmi Narayan and Others; reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , that the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., or the family disputes, where the wrong is basically of private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute and in this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings, keeping in mind the broad objectives i.e. (1) to secure the ends of justice; (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. 13. Here, in this case, the petitioners are the husband and wife. The allegations made by the petitioner No. 2 against the petitioner No.1 are private in nature and arising out of a matrimonial relationship or family dispute. Now, they have settled the matter amicably and are living husband and wife and executed a Settlement Deed, on the basis of which they have approached this Court for quashing the aforesaid FIR. The offence is not so serious in nature and basically it is private in nature and it has no serious impact upon the society. Thus, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases viz. Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and in Laxmi Narayan (supra) to the given factual matrix of this case, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be meted out, if the petition is allowed. Since the matter has been settled amicably, no purpose will be served by continuing with the investigation, which would, rather be an exercise of futility and sheer abuse of the process of the Court. 14. In the result, the petition stands allowed. The FIR, dated 15.05.2020, of Pasighat Police P.S. Case No. 77/2020, under Section 498(A) of the IPC stands set aside and quashed. The case diary be returned to the learned Addl. PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, forthwith. The parties have to bear their own costs.