ORDER : Budi Habung, J. Heard Mr. Pfosekho, learned counsel for the peti-tioner. Also heard Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned P.P. State of Nagaland. 1. This is a joint petition filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 under section 482 Cr. PC, 1973 praying for quashing of the FIR dated 27.11.2023 registered as Sub-Urban Police Station Dimapur Case No.66/2023 under section 409/420/34 IPC. 2. Petitioner No.1 Shri Shiv Bhajan Gupta is accused and the petitioner No.2 Shri Kevi Chusa is the informant in the above PS Case. 3. The case in brief is that the petitioner No.2 lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of the Sub Urban Police Station Dimapur on 27.11.2023 inter alia stating therein he deals with Petro-chemical products; Petitioner No.1 also deal with the same products. The petitioner No.1, approached the petitioner No.2 for sale of petro-chemicals products in the year 2021. As such, the petitioner No.2 started supplying the petro-chemicals products to the petitioner No.1. Gradually the petitioner No.1 be-came well acquainted with the petitioner No.2. Then the petitioner No.2 started supplying petro-chemicals products to the petitioner No.1 on credit which accumulated to Rs.3,40,62,352/-only. However, the petitioner No.1 failed to pay the outstanding bills to the petitioner No.2 and he started avoiding the calls, messages and legal notice of the petitioner No.2. Therefore, on 01.08.2024, the petitioner No.2 filed written FIR against the petitioner No.1. Basing on the said written FIR, the case being Sub-Urban Police Station Dimapur Case No.66/2023 under section 409/420/34 IPC was registered and investigated into. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner No.1 has satisfied the outstanding dues and thus the parties have mutually and amicably settled the dispute and consequently have executed a deed of agreement on 17.5.2024. As per the deed of agreement, the parties have negotiated and settled the credits. As a result, the accused petitioner No.1 has paid all the outstanding dues to the petitioner No.2. Thus, the petitioner No.2 having been satisfied all outstanding bills agreed not to claim for any payment in future. The petitioner No.2 have also agreed to withdraw the FIR lodged by him be-fore the officer-in-Charge against the petitioner No.1. The agreement deed also contained that henceforth, neither of the parties shall have any claim or counter claim against each other pertaining to the dispute. 5. The petitioner No.2 have also agreed to withdraw the FIR lodged by him be-fore the officer-in-Charge against the petitioner No.1. The agreement deed also contained that henceforth, neither of the parties shall have any claim or counter claim against each other pertaining to the dispute. 5. It is submitted that since the petitioner No.2 does not have any further grievance against the petitioner No.1, the parties have submitted a copy of the said deed of agreement to the I.O of the case with a request that the FIR lodged by the petitioner No.2 may be treated as withdrawn and close the case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the allegation by the petitioner No.2 against the petitioner No.1 is non-payment of the credits and outstanding bills for which the petitioner No.2 has also issued a legal notice to the petitioner No.1 demanding clearance of the credits; and as the same being involves with non-payment of the bills on time, the present case is purely civil in nature which does not attract any section under criminal offence. And since the parties have already been mutually and amicably settled by making payment of the pending bills to the petitioner No.2 by the accused petitioner No.1; and as informant/petitioner No.2 has ex-pressed his desire not to pursue with the matter, the continuation of the case against the accused petitioner No.1 would amount to causing unnecessary harassment to both the parties and it would be a futile exercise. Hence, prays for setting aside the further proceeding of the Sub-Urban Police Station Dimapur Case No.66/2023 corresponding to G.R. No770/2023. 7. Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned P.P. produced the scanned copy of the Case Diary and he has also obtained necessary instructions regarding the status of the case and submits that after receipt of the deed of agreement dated 17.5.2024 whereby the parties have mutually and amicably settled the dispute, and as the informant himself has expressed that he has already received all outstanding dues from the accused petitioner No.2 and now, he has no further grievance against the petitioner No.1, the further proceeding of the investigation was halted. He further submits that the dispute between the petitioner No.1 and 2 involves with supply of petro-chemical products by the petitioner No.2 and non-payment of bills amounts by the petitioner No.1; however, subsequently on payment of the said bills by the petitioner No.1 to the petitioner No.2, the case has been amicably settled. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it appears that the matter relates to civil dispute. In view of above, the learned P.P. has no ob-jection if the prayer made by the petitioners are granted. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the records including the Case Diary. 9. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also considered the docu-ments available on record. 10. Upon hearing the parties and on consideration of the material on record, it appears that both the petitioners deal with the same business of Petro-chemical products. Having come closure in the business, the petitioner No.1, approached the petitioner No.2 for sale of petro-chemicals products. The petitioner No.2 started supplying the petro-chemicals products to the petitioner No.1. They became acquainted with each other. The petitioner No.2 then started supplying petro-chemicals products to the petitioner No.1 on credit. The credit accumulated to the tune of Rs.3,40,62,352/-. However, the petitioner No.1 failed to pay the outstanding bills to the petitioner No.2. and started avoiding the petitioner No.2 due to which the petitioner No.2 issued legal notice demanding payment of bills. The above fact of the case goes to show that the dispute between the parties are delivery of goods by the petitioner No2 to the petitioner No.1 on credits and non-payment of the bills by the petitioner No.1 on time for which the petitioner No.2 has also served a legal notice to the petitioner No.1 demanding payment of outstanding bills. The said dispute according to the learned counsel for the petitioner at the most is a civil dispute and, in any case, the same does not attract any section under criminal offence in as much as the case is not even non-payment or not to pay but non-payment of the outstanding bills by the petitioner No.1 to the petitioner No.2 on time. I found sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. I found sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. Moreover, during the pendency of the investigation, the parties have mutually negotiated and amounts as a result the petitioner No.1 has already paid all outstanding bills and thus the matter has amicably been settled between the parties. The parties have al-ready executed the settlement deed whereby the petitioner No.2(Informant) while expressing that he has no further grievance against the accused petitioner NO.1 has agreed to withdraw the FIR lodged by him against the petitioner No.1. According, the parties have submitted the copy of the said settlement deed to the IO of the case. And since the informant did not want to pursue with the matter, the investigation of the case did not progress thereafter as submitted by the learned PP. 12. Further, the above case even if it is registered under criminal offence, the same is between the petitioners and it did not affect the society at large and since the parties have amicably settled the matter by executing the compromise deed dated 17.05.2024, whereby the petitioners have expressed that the dispute was settled on mutual understanding for peaceful co-existence between them and stated that he has no further grievance against the petitioner no. 1. As such, he does not want to pursue the case against the accused/petitioner no. 1. The petitioner number 2 has also undertaken to with-draw the FIR which he did by submitting Agreement deed. 13. From the above, it appears that the continuation of the case before the IO or the Trial Court would only cause hardship to both Petitioners and it would amount to waste of investigating agency and the precious judicial time and loss of exchequer and thus, it would only result in futile exercise. Further, in view of the compromise deed between the parties, there is hardly a chance of the witness coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Under the circumstances, the chance of conviction therefore, appears to be remote. It would therefore, be unnecessary to keep pending the investigation or to drag the proceedings. 14. Further, in view of the compromise deed between the parties, there is hardly a chance of the witness coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Under the circumstances, the chance of conviction therefore, appears to be remote. It would therefore, be unnecessary to keep pending the investigation or to drag the proceedings. 14. Taking all these factum into consideration cumulatively, I am of the considered opinion that the compromise deed dated 17.05.2024 executed between the parties be accepted and the G.R. Case No.770/2023 arising out of the FIR dated 27.11.2023 registered as Sub-Urban Police Station Dimapur Case No.66/2023 under section 409/420/34 IPC pending investigation before the IO of the case and the consequential proceeding of G.R. Case No.770/2023 before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, be quashed. Further, under such circumstances, it is now well settled that even if offences alleged against the accused/petitioner no. 1, are non-compoundable, the High Court or Apex Court in exercise of their inherent power may intersect the criminal proceeding. It is no longer res-integra that there is a catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court in this regard; however, this Court may gainfully place reliance on the principle of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Gopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2021 SCC On-line SC 384. 15. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since the case has amicably been settled between the parties, interse, this Court is of the considered opinion that the G.R. Case No.770/2023 arising out of the FIR dated 27.11.2023 registered as Sub-Urban Police Station Dimapur Case No.66/2023 under section 409/420/34 IPC pending before the IO of the case/learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur arising out of Dimapur Case No.66/2023 under section 409/420/34 IPC needs to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition stands allowed and disposed of.