JUDGMENT : By this joint petition under Section 482 read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner No. 1-Shri Debia Tadam, the petitioner No. 2-Shri Nangbia Jhony, and the petitioner No. 3-Shri Tana Doji, who are the accused and the complainant, respectively, approached this Court for quashing the F.I.R. of Doimukh P.S. Case No. 32/2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 482/2015, on the basis of one settlement deed entered into by them. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:- “The petitioner No. 3 (complainant) has lodged one F.I.R. before the Officer-In-Charge, Doimukh Police Station, to the effect that some miscreants used his name for extortion in the name of NIT Institute and they have threaten the OSD of NIT and one Associate Professor to get their salary to them by using Mobile No. 9436016754. The Officer-In-Charge, Doimukh Police Station, then registered Doimukh P.S. Case No. 32/2015, under Sections 384/419/506 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigated the same. The investigation culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, under Sections 384/419/506 of the Indian Penal Code. While the case was pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, the petitioners entered into a Settlement Deed on 06.01.2022 and on the basis of the same, the petitioners approached this Court for quashing the F.I.R. of Doimukh P.S. Case No. 32/2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 482/2015.” 3. Heard Mr. T. Torum, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 4. Mr. T. Torum, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that while the case was pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, the petitioners, who are complainant and accused here in this case, entered into a Settlement Deed, dated 06.01.2022, and on the basis of the said Settlement Deed, the petitioners filed the present petition for quashing the F.I.R. and subsequent proceeding pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. Mr. Torum, learned counsel for the petitioners, further submits that the offences are not serious in nature and the parties have settled the entire dispute amongst themselves and they are not willing to pursue the same and, therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mr. Torum, learned counsel for the petitioners, further submits that the offences are not serious in nature and the parties have settled the entire dispute amongst themselves and they are not willing to pursue the same and, therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, on the other hand, submits that since the parties have settled the matter entirely amongst themselves and since the offences are not serious in nature involving mental depravity and not against the society and as such, the State has no objection in the event of allowing the petition. 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 gone through the LCR, received from the learned Court below. 7. The allegation against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 is that they, having used informant/petitioner No. 3, who is the Convenor of All Nyishi Student Union (ANSU), committed extortion from NIT Institute, Yupia, and also threatened OSD NIT, Yupia, and the NIT Professors to get their salary to them by using Mobile No. 9436016754. The petitioners have been identified as the accused in the course of investigation. 8. A perusal of the Settlement deed, dated 06.01.2022, reveals that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, who are accused in this case, have entered into a Settlement Deed with the petitioner No. 3, the complainant/Shri Tana Doje, having settled the case amicably outside the Court, which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, at the initial stage of trial. They have agreed to withdraw the case jointly from the Court on the ground that there was misunderstanding between the parties, and they have also filed one Application before the Police for closing the case, but Police has no power to close the case as they have already submitted Charge-Sheet in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 9. It also appears that the offences under Sections 384/419/506 of the Indian Penal Code are not so serious. The punishment prescribed for the same are also not severe, and it does not fall in the category of cases which cannot be lawfully compounded, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. 9. It also appears that the offences under Sections 384/419/506 of the Indian Penal Code are not so serious. The punishment prescribed for the same are also not severe, and it does not fall in the category of cases which cannot be lawfully compounded, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 . In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed 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 of 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; and 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.” 10. In the case in hand, the offences do not fall in the category of case described hereinabove and besides, it appears that the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves. 11. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. the State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , 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 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.” 12. In the case in hand, since the parties have resolved the dispute amicably between themselves and entered into a Settlement Deed and on that basis, they have approached this Court for quashing the proceeding, there is unlikelihood of deposing against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, in the learned Court below, by the petitioner No. 3 if the proceeding is allowed to continue and as such, further proceeding before the learned Court below would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 1 & 2, in the learned Court below, by the petitioner No. 3 if the proceeding is allowed to continue and as such, further proceeding before the learned Court below would be an abuse of the process of the Court. In that case, the accused persons would be put to undue hardship and grave injustice would be caused to them and end of justice will be served if the petition be allowed. 13. In view of above discussion and finding and also in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case laws discussed hereinabove and further considering the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court is inclined to accept the petition. Accordingly, the same stands allowed. The F.I.R. of Doimukh P.S. Case No. 32/2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 482/2015, under Sections 384/419/506 of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed. 14. The parties have to bear their own cost.