JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Vinnoka Achumi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned P.P. for the State of respondent. Also heard Ms. Asenla Walling, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Cr. PC for quashing the FIR dated 04/01/2022 which is registered as Sub-Urban P.S Case No. 02/2022 under section 420, 468 & 471 IPC corresponding to G.R No. 04/2022. 3. The fact of the case in brief is that on 02/11/2021 some of the residents of the Westyard colony, Dimapur assembled at the resident of the petitioner to discuss issues pertaining to the replacement of Shri. Ashim Patikar the incumbent G.B of the colony as the people of the area where dissatisfied with the poor functioning of the said G.B. The residents of the colony accordingly adopted a resolution and submitted the representation dated Nil to the Deputy Commissioner for replacing the present G.B of the westyard colony by the present petitioner. Along with the representation the ‘Form for replacement of the G.B’ was also forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner. The said form was in fact to be signed by the respondent No.2/chairman of the westyard colony but the signature of the said Chairman in the form was forged by the petitioner. It is in this circumstances that the Chairman of the westyard colony filed the FIR dated 04/01/2022 to the Officer-in-Charge, Sub-Urban Police Station, Dimapur, Nagaland and consequent to which the SBN P.S C/No. 02/22 under section 420, 468, 471 IPC was registered against the petitioner. 4. That pursuant to the registration of the case both the petitioner as well as the complainant met and agreed to amicably settle the dispute and accordingly the Deed of Compromise was executed on 19/03/2022. By the compromise the complainant agreed to immediately withdraw the said complaint/case from the concerned Police Station and/or the Court and the petitioner agreed to withdraw the application for replacement of the Gaonbura which was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. This compromise was executed for a peaceful co-existence of the parties and to set the dispute at rest once and for all. 5. This compromise was executed for a peaceful co-existence of the parties and to set the dispute at rest once and for all. 5. Subsequent to the compromise the petitioner submitted the application dated Nil to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur for withdrawal of the application for replacement of the G.B. and consequent to which the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur issued the order dated 22/03/2022 dismissing the application received from the residents of the westyard colony, Dimapur for appointment of the petitioner as the G.B of the colony on the ground of the compromise executed by the parties. 6. Mr. Vinnoka Achumi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the filing of the FIR by the complainant since the matter was immediately compromised verbally the petitioner was not arrested by the Police nor any progress made in the investigation of the case by the Police. The learned counsel also submitted that the offences charged against the petitioner is neither serious nor heinous in nature affecting the society at large. It is also further submitted that the continuance of the criminal process on the basis of the FIR when the parties have already compromised the dispute will be an abuse of the process of the Court and a harassment to the petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied in the case of Narinder Singh & Others -versus- State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 to bring home the point that when the parties have reached a settlement the guiding factor for quashing the criminal proceeding would be secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and further that in those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of the offence and the matter is still under investigation the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigations. 7. Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned P.P. submits that the State respondent has no objection to the petition filed by the petitioner so also Ms. Asenla Walling, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 adopts the same line of submission as the learned P.P. 8. The FIR has been registered against the petitioner under section 420, 468, 471 IPC. Section 420 IPC has been made compoundable under sub-section (2) of section 320 Cr. Asenla Walling, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 adopts the same line of submission as the learned P.P. 8. The FIR has been registered against the petitioner under section 420, 468, 471 IPC. Section 420 IPC has been made compoundable under sub-section (2) of section 320 Cr. PC with the leave of the Court. However, section 468, 471 IPC are non-compoundable offences. From the FIR lodged against the petitioner this Court has notice that the dispute arose as the petitioner allegedly forged the signature of the complainant in the ‘Form for Replacement of G.B’ while forwarding the resolution adopted by the resident of the westyard colony, Dimapur to replace the incumbent G.B Shri Ashim Patikar to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. From the record of the case, it is seen that the resolution for replacement of the incumbent G.B was indeed adopted by the residents of the colony but as the form which is to be signed by the Chairman of the colony was allegedly forged by the petitioner the FIR was lodged. The dispute between the petitioner and the complainant has however been amicably resolved by executing the compromise deed dated 19/03/2022 in which the complainant has agreed to immediately withdraw the complaint and likewise the petitioner has agreed to withdraw the application for replacement of the Gaonbura (G.B) submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. It is further seen that consequent to the compromise the petitioner had addressed a letter to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur for withdrawal of the application submitted for replacement of the G.B and pursuant thereto the Office of the Deputy Commissioner has issued the order dated 22/03/2022 dismissing the application for appointment of the petitioner as the G.B of the westyard colony on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties. 9. The FIR lodged against the petitioner does not disclose the commission of any heinous crime or wrongdoings that tends to seriously endanger and threaten the good and the well being of the society. The FIR was filed in the facts and circumstances narrated herein before which however has been compromise between the disputing parties. Moreover, the investigation of the case is at an initial and a nascent stage with only the filing of the FIR and the registration of the case with no progress in the investigation on account of the compromise. The FIR was filed in the facts and circumstances narrated herein before which however has been compromise between the disputing parties. Moreover, the investigation of the case is at an initial and a nascent stage with only the filing of the FIR and the registration of the case with no progress in the investigation on account of the compromise. Even otherwise, the petition has not been objected to by the State respondent as well as by the respondent No.2/complainant. 10. In view of the facts narrated this Court is therefore of the considered view that no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the investigation/criminal proceeding against the petitioner more particularly in the light of the compromise executed between the parties. This Court is also of the view that the continuance of the criminal process against the petitioner on the basis of the FIR lodged by the complainant in every likelihood may turn out to be an exercise in futility without anything positive being ultimately achieved. 11. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot -versus- State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , the Supreme Court has held that; “6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” 12. In the case of Gain Singh -versus- State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court has held that ; “49. It was further held as under: (Kulwinder Singh case, CTC pp. 784-85, paras 23 & 25) “23. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) Cr.PC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr. PC. 25. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under Cr. PC which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) Cr.PC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr. PC. 25. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under Cr. PC which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr. PC, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 Cr. PC is to be exercised ex-debito justitiae to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 Cr. PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the 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 accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes 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. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if 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 the extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 13. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to an abuse of the process of law. The offences charge against the petitioner are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society and the acceptance of the compromise agreement would bring about peace and amity between the two sides thus ushering in harmonious existence between the petitioner and the complainant in particular and the people residing in the westyard colony, Dimapur in general. 14. In the circumstances of the case, the FIR dated 04/01/2022 which is registered as Dimapur Sub-Urban P.S Case No. 02/2022 under section 420, 468, 471 IPC (corresponding to G.R. Case No.04/2022) and all consequential proceeding arising there from are hereby set aside and quashed. 15. Petition is allowed. No cost.