JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. T. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. P.P, for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition under section 482 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 to set aside and quash the FIR dated 02.10.2005 registered as Naharlagun P.S Case No. 122/2005 under section 458/324/427/435/511/109/34 IPC corresponding to G.R No. 58/2005 and the criminal proceedings/trial pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia District-Papum Pare. 3. The petitioner No. 1, 2 & 3 are the alleged accused persons in the above referred criminal case. The petitioner No. 4 is the informant and the petitioner No.5 is the victim. 4. The case in brief is that on 02.10.2005 the petitioner No.4 filed an FIR to the Officer-in-Charge, Naharlagun P.S stating that some miscreants trespassed into his compound and broke the windows of his house and also damaged his vehicles and during which injury was inflicted on the petitioner No.5. On receiving the FIR, the police registered the above referred case. In the course of the investigation of the case by the police, the petitioner No. 1,2 & 3 were arrested for their alleged involvement in the case. Investigation by the police revealed that due to some misunderstanding between the accused/petitioner No. 3 and the informant/petitioner No.4, the accused/petitioner No. 1 & 2 who are the acquaintance of the petitioner No.3 in aninebriated state trespassed into the house of the petitioner No.4 and caused damaged to the house and the vehicles of the petitioner No.4 and also inflicted bodily injury to the petitioner No.5. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet dated 16.06.2006 under section 173 Cr. P.C. The petitioner No. 1 & 2 were charge sheeted under section 458/323/427/307/436/511 IPC while the petitioner No. 3 was charge sheeted under section 109 IPC. One Mrs. Rido Meena was also charged under section 212 IPC. On 18.07.2018, the charge was considered by the learned Sessions Judge (WSD),Yupiaand charges were framed against the petitioner No. 1 & 2 under section 458/324/427/435/511/34 IPC, and against the petitioner No.3 under section 109 IPC. Mrs. RidoMeena was discharged from the criminal liability of the case. The case being triable by a Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 5. Mrs. RidoMeena was discharged from the criminal liability of the case. The case being triable by a Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 5. The trial of the case is in progress in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia and the court has already recorded the evidence of both the informant/petitioner No.4 and the victim/petitioner No.5 on oath on 16.07.2019. The evidence of Smti Joram Meha (PW No. 3) and Shri. Joram Holi (PW No. 4) has also been recorded on 05.11.2019. The evidence of the remaining prosecution witnesses, 6(six) in numbers, are yet to be recorded and accordingly the case is pending for disposal. 6. That on 30.05.2021, the Deed of Settlement has been executed between the petitioner No. 1, 2 & 3 as the first party and the petitioner No. 4 & 5 as the second party. The relevant part of the agreement is reproduced here under; i). That the first party and the second party had clarified each other about the 16 years old issue and came to conclusion that incident has been happened due to misunderstanding and shall maintain cordial relation between each and buried all the differences. ii). That Shri. Byabang Taj and Shri.Likha Roja being the senior public/political leader of the community should work together for upliftment of society and state as a whole. iii). That both the parties have resolved to approach the appropriate court for termination of 16 years old case vide NLG P.S Case No. 122/2005 pending before the court of CJM, Capital Complex, Yupia. iv). This settlement is made without any consideration to maintain cordial relationship with each other and to work together. It is on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties that the present petition under section 482 Cr. P.C has been filed. 7. Mr. T. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the incident occurred due to some misunderstanding between the petitioner No.3 and the petitioner No.4 and due to which the petitioner No. 1 & 2 in an inebriated state and in the heat of the moment caused damaged to the house and the vehicles of the petitioner No. 4 and also inflicted injuries on the petitioner No.5. The learned counsel submits that the wrong committed by the petitioner No. 1, 2 & 3 was only against the personal properties of the petitioner No.4 and the injury caused to the petitioner No.5 is only minor in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also taken this Court to the record of the case particularly, the evidence of the petitioner No. 4 & 5 and submits that there is absolutely nothing incriminating against the accused/petitioners. It is also submitted that the evidence of the petitioner No. 4 & 5 was recorded by the court below on 16.07.2019 much before the Settlement dated 30.05.2021 was executed between the rival parties (petitioners) and therefore it can be conveniently inferred that no coercive means was applied to the informant and the victim when their evidence was recorded by the court on 16.07.2019. Mr. T. Tabaalso submits that since the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and have decided to co-exist peacefully in future and also considering that the evidence on record does not make out any case with which the accused/petitioners are charged, allowing the criminal proceedings/trial to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court and the ends of the justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed. Mr. T. Taba further submits that since the conviction of the accused/petitioners in the present case appears grim the entire exercise of the trial may be an exercise in futility. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submits that this Hon’ble Court may liberally exercise its inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P.C for setting aside and quashing the FIR and the trial which is pending disposal before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, YupiaPapum Pare District. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied in the case of Narinder Singh & Others -versus-State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 to submit that since the offences involved in the case are personal in nature and are not offences against the society and since the rival parties have amicably settled the dispute between themselves and buried the hatchet and the conviction of the accused/petitioners are grim, this Court can exercise its inherent power and quash the criminal proceedings pending before the court below. 8. Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. 8. Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Arunachal Pradesh submits that since the parties have compromised the dispute amongst themselves and as the evidence on record particularly that of the informant and the victim does not reveal anything incriminating against the accused/petitioners, the matter is left to the discretion of the court. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Court has perused the petition and the records of the Naharlagun P.S Case No. 122/2005 corresponding to G.R Case No. 146/05 which has been called for from the court below. From the records it transpires that there was animosity and misunderstanding between the petitioner No. 3 and the petitioner No.4 and because of which the petitioner No. 1 & 2 under the influence of alcohol trespassed into the compound of the petitioner No. 4 and damaged the house of the petitioner No.4 by breaking the window panes and also causing damaged to his vehicles and also inflicting injury to the petitioner No.5. It was in this circumstances that the FIR was registered against the petitioner No. 1, 2 & 3. On completion of the investigation, the I.O of the case submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner No. 1 & 2 under section 458/323/427/307/436/511 IPC and against the petitioner No.3 under section 109 IPC. During the consideration of the charge before the learned Sessions Judge (WSD),Yupia section 307/323/436 IPC were dropped against the petitioner No. 1 & 2 and both these petitioners were charge under section 458/324/427/435/511/34 IPC. The evidence of the informant/petitioner No.4 and the victim/petitioner No.5 were recorded on oath on 16.07.2019 and the evidence of the two other witnesses namely, Smti. JoramMeha (PW No. 3) and Shri.JoramHoli (PW No. 4) were recorded on 05.11.2019. 10. In the meantime, the rival parties have amicably resolved their disputes/misunderstanding by signing the Settlement Deed on 30.05.2021 with the intervention of friends, relatives and well-wishers. The settlement has been entered between the parties with the purpose of maintaining cordial relation with each other by burying all their past differences. Moreover, by the said agreement the petitioner No. 3 and the petitioner No.4 who are the public leaders of their community has agreed to work together for the upliftment of the society and the state as a whole. Such noble gestures and intentions of the rival parties, this Court feels, cannot be completely brushed aside and overlooked. Moreover, by the said agreement the petitioner No. 3 and the petitioner No.4 who are the public leaders of their community has agreed to work together for the upliftment of the society and the state as a whole. Such noble gestures and intentions of the rival parties, this Court feels, cannot be completely brushed aside and overlooked. 11. This Court has also perused the records which has been called for from the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate particularly, the evidence adduced by the informant and the victim and there is nothing incriminating to suggest that the accused/petitioners have committed the offence with which they are charge. Moreover, the Medical Examination Report dated 02.10.2005 of the victim issued by the Medical Officer of the District Hospital opines that the injury is simple in nature inflicted by blunt weapon. It is noteworthy to mention that the evidence of the informant and the victim was recorded on oath by the trial court on 16.07.2019 whereas the settlement between the rival parties was signed only on 31.05.2021. Therefore, the possibility of the accused/petitioners adopting coercive means to unduly influence the informant and the victim to depose favourably in favour of the accused/petitioners in the court of law appears remote. Even otherwise, the Settlement dated 31.05.2021, to this Court, appears just and fair free from any undue pressure. 12. Considering that the damaged caused to the properties of the informant/petitioner No.4 was fallout of the misunderstanding between the petitioner No.3 & 4 and also considering that the rival parties have mutually agreed to resolve the 16 years old case for a peaceful and harmonious coexistent between them and to work together for the upliftment of the society and also taking into account that nothing much is discernible from the record of the case to incriminate the accused/petitioners with the offence charged, this Court is of the considered view that the chances of recording conviction against the accused/petitioners appears remote and allowing the proceedings/trial to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court as the entire exercise of the trial may likely end up in futility. This Court therefore considers that it would be only appropriate that the criminal trial pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia is put to an end by accepting the settlement executed between the parties. 13. This Court therefore considers that it would be only appropriate that the criminal trial pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia is put to an end by accepting the settlement executed between the parties. 13. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot -versus- State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , the Hon’ble 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.” 14. In the case of Gian Singh -versus- State of Punjab& Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that; “35. In Sushil Suri v. CBI the Court considered the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and made the following observations in para 16 of the Report: (SCC p. 715) “16. …………………… Though it is emphasised that exercise of inherent powers would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, but the common thread which runs through all the decisions on the subject is that the Court would be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction where the allegations made in the complaint or charge-sheet, as the case may be, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged.” 49. It was further held as under : (Kulwinder Singh case , CTC pp. 784-85, para 23 & 25) “23. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr. P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 25. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr. P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 25. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr. P.C. 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. P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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.P.C. 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 everlasting 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.” 56. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided. 58.Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Actor the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed. 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R 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 the Prevention of Corruption Actor 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 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. 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 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 criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 15. In the case of Narinder Singh & Others -versus- State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court as held that; “17.… … … … …On the other hand, there may be offences falling in the category where “correctional” objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage in contrast with “deterrence” philosophy. Punishment, whatever else may be, must be fair and conducive to good rather than further evil. If in a particular case the Court is of the opinion that the settlement between the parties would lead to more good; better relations between them; would prevent further occurrence of such encounters between the parties, it may hold settlement to be on a better pedestal. It is a delicate balance between the two inflicting interests which is to be achieved by the Court after examining all these parameters and then deciding as to which course of action it should take in a particular case. 24. The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they say that since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighbours and that was the reason for restoring friendly ties. 24. The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they say that since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighbours and that was the reason for restoring friendly ties. In such a scenario, should the court give its imprimatur to such a settlement? The answer depends on various incidental aspects which need serious discourse. The Legislators has categorically recognized that those offences which are covered by the provisions of section 320 of the Code are concededly those which not only do not fall within the category of heinous crime but also which are personal between the parties. Therefore, this provision recognizes where there is a compromise between the parties the Court is to act at the said compromise and quash the proceedings. However, even in respect of such offences not covered within the four corners of Section 320 of the Code, the High Court is given power under Section 482 of the Code to accept the compromise between the parties and quash the proceedings. The guiding factor is as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, both the ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. This is so recognized in various judgments taken note of above. 26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used, etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307IPC were unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 4 8 2 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. 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 to 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. 29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Actor 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. 29.4. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Actor 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. 29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6………. 29.7………. 33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz. “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14-7-2010 registered with Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly.”. 16. In the light of the discussions made above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court accept the Settlement dated 30.05.2021 executed between the parties and in exercise of the power conferred by section 482 Cr. P.C set aside and quash the FIR dated 02.10.2005 registered as Naharlagun P.S Case No. 122/2005 corresponding to G.R Case No. 58/2005, the charge sheet filed by the police on 16.06.2006 under section 173 Cr. P.C and the criminal proceedings/trial pending before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex at Yupia, District-Papum Pare. 17. Petition is allowed. No cost. 18. Send back the LCR forthwith.