JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Nabam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed for setting aside and quashing the F.I.R in Balijan PS Case No. 2/2017 under Section 435 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 58/2017. 2. This petition is filed jointly by the informant of the Balijan P.S. Case No. 2/2017 and the accused therein as both the accused and the informant had in the meantime amicably settled the matter through a mutual settlement dated 07.12.2021, in presence of the Village Head and elders of the clan. 3. The petitioner No. 2 Nabam Seka lodged an F.I.R. on 20.01.2017 before the Officer-in-Charge of Doimukh Police Station inter-alia alleging that the petitioner No. 1 Nabam Yari trace-passed and was set on fire of a vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-BX-1770. The said F.I.R. was forwarded to Balijan Police Station and accordingly Balijan P.S. Case No. 2/2017 under Section 435 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 58/2017 has been registered. 4. Subsequently, after investigation, the investigating officer forwarded the case to the trial Court for prosecution of the petitioner No. 2 under Section 435 of IPC. 5. The charge-sheet reveals that though the accused, during interrogation denied the charges and raised an plea of alibi, the Investigating Officer on the basis of C.D.R. of her mobile did conclude that she was present at the place of occurrence till 21:02 hours on 06.01.2017. The other evidence that the I.O. had collected is that the three witnesses who were present in a meeting on 12.01.2017 had stated that they had heard/ saw accused Nabam Yari admitting before the gathering about burning down the vehicle by her. During the investigation, the I.O. could further gather that the accused/petitioner No. 1 is in a state of relationship with one Sri Nabam Tullon, the owner of the vehicle and their relation was not running smooth and on the date of incidence, after having hot argument with Nabam Tullon over phone, the accused petitioner No. 1, burnt down the vehicle. 6. By way of filing the present joint petition, the two petitioners pleads that the vehicle owner Sri Nabam Tullon is the husband of the informant/petitioner No. 2 Nabam Seka. 6. By way of filing the present joint petition, the two petitioners pleads that the vehicle owner Sri Nabam Tullon is the husband of the informant/petitioner No. 2 Nabam Seka. They further plead in the petition that accused petitioner No. 1 Nabam Yari was having an extra merital affairs with said Nabam Tullon, husband of informant/petitioner No. 2. The accused constructed a house at Poma Village, (the village of occurrence) and for commutation purpose the husband of the informant/petitioner No. 2 handed over his Honda City Car bearing registration No. AS-01-BX-1770 to the accused petitioner No. 1 and on 06.01.2017 having a hot argument over the phone the accused/ petitioner No. 1, burnt down the vehicle. 7. Thereafter, in local nyel (customary kind of arbitration), the parties i.e. the accused/petitioner No. 1 and the informant/petitioner No. 2 entered into a compromise in presence of the village elders and well wishers of both the parties. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is now to decide whether this is a fit case where this Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal prosecution initiated by F.I.R. being Balijan P.S. Case No. 02/2017. 9. It is by now settled that a High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can very well quash a criminal proceeding or a criminal complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. but while doing so, the Court is to follow certain principles as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court n Gian Singh–Vs-State of Punjab and Another reported in 2012 10 SCC 303 , and in State of Madhya Pradesh –Vs-Laxmi Narayan and Others reported in 2019 5 SCC 688 . 10. In Laxminarayan (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 13 held as under:- “13. 10. In Laxminarayan (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 13 held as under:- “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. 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. 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 impart 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”. 11. The factual background, pleaded by the two petitioners herein, (the accused and the informant) supported by affidavit sworn in by the informant and the conclusion of the I.O. reflects that the husband of the informant is the owner of the burnt vehicle, the same was under possession of the accused at her residence at Village Poma. The accused and the informant was having an affair and that’s why the vehicle was given to the accused for her commutation and on the fateful day there was a fight between the accused and the husband of the informant (the vehicle owner). From material available on record, it is apparent that the victim vehicle owner has not lodged the F.I.R. rather his wife has lodged the F.I.R. The fact also remains that both the accused and the informant has compromised as per local custom. 12. From material available on record, it is apparent that the victim vehicle owner has not lodged the F.I.R. rather his wife has lodged the F.I.R. The fact also remains that both the accused and the informant has compromised as per local custom. 12. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of a considered opinion that the origin of the dispute is in nature of a personal dispute relating to relationship and therefore, the owner of the vehicle has not lodged the F.I.R. Though a vehicle was torched, in the given factual background, the commission of offence shall not have a serious impact on the society inasmuch as the entire episode arose out of disputes which are private and personal in nature. The offences in the given facts cannot be treated as heinous and serious offences of mental depravity as gathered from the materials collected during the investigation by the I.O. Therefore, ends of justice would met in quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 58/2017 arising out of Balijan P.S. Case No. 02/2017 under Section 435 IPC. 13. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing the criminal prosecution being G.R. Case No. 58/2017 arising out of Balijan P.S. Case No. 02/2017 under Section 435 IPC pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia.