JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Angami, learned PP for the State of Nagaland. 2. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 CrPC, read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner, Shri Rangkhaba Thonger for quashing the FIR and criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 89/18, North P.S., Kohima Case No. 41/18, under Section 419/420/471/34 IPC on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent have settled the matter amicably, and they have executed one Settlement Deed also. 3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is adumbrated hereinbelow :- “On 01.06.2018, one Likhasi Sangtam, former P.A. to the Minister, C. Kipili Sangtam, lodged an FIR with North PS, Kohima, alleging interalia amongst others that fraudulent drawal of salary and other pending arrears from the Civil Secretariat, Kohima has been made by forging the official signature and by way of impersonating his wife, which was recorded by the then cashier. Upon the said FIR, the OC, Kohima North PS, registered a case being Kohima North PS Case No. 41/18, under Section 419/420/471/34 IPC and investigated the same. The investigation culminated in submission of Charge-sheet against one Rangkhaba Thonger and Sethronkyu to stand trial in the Court under Section 419/420/471/34 IPC. While the case was pending before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima, the parties have compounded the matter and entered into a Settlement Deed and based upon the same, they have approached this Court for quashing the FIR and the criminal proceeding pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima, being the offence under Section 471 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC.” 4. Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have already compounded the matter and they have executed one Settlement Deed also, which is annexed with the petitioner as Annexure-‘B’ and the parties are not willing to pursue the matter further and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition by quashing the FIR and subsequent proceeding pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, Mr. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K. Angami, the learned PP for the State of Nagaland submits that since the matter has been settled between the parties and since they are not willing to proceed with the matter the State has no objection in the event of allowing the petition. 6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides I have gone through the petition and documents placed on record. It appears that on the accusation on fraudulent drawal of salary and other pending arrears from the Civil Secretariat, Kohima by forging the official signature of Minister, C. Kipili Sangtam and on receipt of an FIR to that effect from his P.A., the O/C, North PS, Kohima has registered a case being Kohima North PS Case No. 41/18, under Section 419/420/471/34 IPC, and thereafter, carried out the investigation which culminated in submission of Charge-sheet against the petitioner Rangkhaba Thonger and Sethronkyu, to stand trial in the court under Section 419/420/471/34 IPC. Thereafter, the parties have settled the matter amicably and they have executed one deed of settlement which is enclosed with the petition as Annexure-‘B’. A careful perusal of the Annexure-‘B’ reveals that the petitioner and the other accused Mr. Sethronkyu have entered into an agreement with the complainant Likhasi Sangtam and compounded the matter and the complainant received back an amount of Rs. 1,06,800/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand and Eight Hundred) on 07.06.2018, and the second party and third party, i.e., the petitioner and accused Sethronkyu undertook not to repeat similar offences in future and they begged sincere apology to the complainant. It also appears thereafter, on the basis of the said Settlement Deed they approached this Court by filing the present petitioner under Section 482 IPC read with Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. While dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of Settlement Deed arrived at by the parties in respect of non-compoundable offences, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. 7. While dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of Settlement Deed arrived at by the parties in respect of non-compoundable offences, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Lakshmi Narayan, (2019) 5SCC 688, held as under: “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 impact 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.” It is further held that “the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceeding for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly, that is arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves.” 8. Again in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier judgment in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10SCC 303, held that: “when the parties have reached a settlement and on that basis the petition for quashing the proceeding is filed the guiding factor in such cases would be secure the:- (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.” 9. Here in this case, a careful perusal of Annexure-‘B’, the Settlement Deed, reveals that the parties have settled the entire dispute among themselves and they are not willing to proceed with the case further and as such, allowing the petitioner with advance the cause of justice. And since the parties have settled the dispute among themselves, the complainant is unlikely to dispute before the learned Court below against the petitioners. And as such, further proceeding with the case would be abuse of the process of the Court. 10. And since the parties have settled the dispute among themselves, the complainant is unlikely to dispute before the learned Court below against the petitioners. And as such, further proceeding with the case would be abuse of the process of the Court. 10. In the case in hand, the offence under Section 419/420 IPC, are compoundable offence. Though the offence under Section 471 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, yet the punishment prescribed for the same is only two years and the same, as such, is not so serious in nature. And moreover, the offence appears to be private in nature and not against the society. There is also nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has antecedent of similar activities. 11. In view of above, and also in view of the submission advanced by the advocates of both the parties, this Court is of the view that allowing the petition will meet the ends of justice and accordingly, the same stands allowed. 12. The FIR and the criminal proceedings in GR Case No. 89/18 corresponding to North PS, Kohima Case No. 41/2018, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima, stands set aside and quashed. 13. The parties have to bear their own cost.