JUDGMENT : This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners, namely, Smti Token Karga, Smti Kijum Sora, Shri Hento Karga, Smti Doter Kamduk, Smti Tumken Kamduk, Shri Tomo Ete, Shri Bompe Ete & Shri Ragge Ete, jointly, for quashing and setting aside Aalo P.S./F.I.R. No. 35/2011 and the Charge-Sheet No. 74/2021, dated 09.08.2021, under Sections 324/452/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 153/2021, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:- “On 20.05.2011, at about 2200 hours, one Hento Karga, EAC, lodged one F.I.R. with the Aalo Police Station to the effect that a group of around 20 (twenty) persons, led by Smti Token Karga, have entered into his government quarter at Sipu Colony, Aalo, with lethal weapons, such as blade, iron rod, scissors and attemped to kill Smti Kijum Sora on 20.05.2011, at around 8.00 P.M. As a result, Smti Kijum Sora sustained grievous injury on her body. On receipt of the said F.I.R., the Officer-In-Charge, Aalo Police Station, registered a case being Aalo P.S. Case No. 35/2011, under Sections 452/326/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and endorsed S.I. N. Had to investigate the same. The investigation culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet against Smti Token Karga, Shri Tumken Kamduk, Smti Doter Kamduk, Shri Tomo Ete, Shri Bompe Ete and Shri Ragge Ete, to stand trial in the Court of under Sections 452/324/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the accused persons appeared before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. While the case was pending in the stage of appearance, the accused persons and the victim and informant compromised the matter and executed one Family Settlement Deed on 03.12.2021 and on the basis of the said Family Settlement Deed, the accused and the victim and the informant approached this Court, jointly, to quash the F.I.R. and the Charge-Sheet of Aalo P.S. Case no. 35/2011, under Sections 452/326/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.” 3. Heard Mr. L. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 4. Mr. 35/2011, under Sections 452/326/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.” 3. Heard Mr. L. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 4. Mr. L. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that on the basis of the Family Settlement Deed, the victim, the informant and the accused persons, jointly, preferred this petition for quashing the F.I.R. and the Charge-Sheet of Aalo P.S. Case No. 35/2011, under Sections 452/326/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Kurdu further submits that since the matter has amicably been settled between the parties, further proceeding with Aalo P.S. Case No. 35/2011, under Sections 452/326/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, will be an abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, it is contended to allow the petition by setting aside and quashing the F.I.R. and the Charge-Sheet of Aalo P.S. Case No. 35/2011, under Sections 452/326/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, submits that the State has no objection in the event of allowing the petition as the parties belongs to the same family and the dispute has been settled amicably and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [ (2019) 5 SCC 688 ], the petition may be allowed. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also the LCR received today. 7. It appears that the Aalo P.S. Case No. 35/2011, under Sections 452/326/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., dated 20.05.2011, lodged by one Shri Hento Karga, EAC. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that at about 8.00 P.M., on that day, a group of about 20 (twenty) persons, led by Smti Token Karga, entered into his government quarter at Sipu Colony, Aalo, with lethal weapons such as blade, iron rod, scissors and attempted to kill Smti Kijum Sora and as a result of which, she sustained grievous injuries on several parts of her body. It also appears that during investigation, the I.O. has visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, prepared sketch map of the place of occurrence and got the victim examined by the Doctor and on completion of investigation, laid Charge-Sheet against the accused, Smti Token Karga, Shri Tumken Kamduk, Smti Doter Kamduk, Shri Tomo Ete, Shri Bompe Ete and Shri Ragge Ete, who are the petitioner Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 & 6, respectively. 8. It also appears that while the case was pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, for appearance of the accused persons, the parties have entered into a Family Settlement Deed on 03.12.2021, wherein, it is stated that out of misunderstanding, the informant lodged the F.I.R. against his first wife, Smti Token Karga, for allegedly assaulting his second wife, Smti Kijum Sora, and that the differences amongst the parties have already been resolved in presence of the family members and the alleged victim and informant is not interested in pursuing the case against the accused petitioners. It is to be noted here that the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the victim and the informant, respectively, here in this case. It also appears from the Injury Report of the victim that the injuries sustained by the victim are not grievous in nature and caused by sharp and blunt object. Further, it appears that the accused, Smti Token Karga, is the first wife of Shri Hento Karga and the victim, Smti Kijum Sora, is the second wife and the other accused persons are their family members. It also appears from the Family Settlement Deed that they have amicably settled the disputes in presence of their family members and they are not interested in pursuing the matter further. 9. It also appears from the Family Settlement Deed that they have amicably settled the disputes in presence of their family members and they are not interested in pursuing the matter further. 9. While dealing with the issue of exercising of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceedings, on the basis of Settlement Deed, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra), at paragraph 13 the of the judgment, 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 …” 10. Here in this case, the dispute is overwhelmingly and predominantly appears to be a family dispute and the parties settled the disputes amicably amongst themselves in presence of their family members and they are not interested to pursue the same any further and they have executed one Family Settlement Deed also. 11. In view of above and also in view of the submissions made at the Bar and also considering the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where the criminal proceeding can be quashed by exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and allowing the said criminal proceeding to continue, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court and also it would not be in the interest of justice. 12. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. Consequently, the Aalo P.S./F.I.R. No. 35/2011 and the Charge-Sheet No. 74/2021, dated 09.08.2021, under Sections 324/452/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 153/2021, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, stands set aside and quashed. 13. The parties have to bear their own cost.