JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioners herein, who are the accused and the informant respectively, in connection with Naharlagun Police Station Case No. 57/23 dated 04.05.2023, registered under Section 380 of the IPC have instituted the present proceedings for quashing of the FIR dated 04.05.2023 along with Charge-sheet No. 128/2023 dated 08.09.2023, under G.R. Case No. 296/2023, presently pending in the files of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex at Yupia. 3. The petitioner no. 2 herein, had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 04.05.2023, alleging therein that one boy wearing a helmet and mask had come to his shop and asked to see a 14 pro max i-phone for purchase. The said mobile phone on being handed over to the said boy, he fled with the same and inspite of best efforts he could not be caught. The police on receipt of the said FIR, proceeded to register Naharlagun Police Station Case No. 57/23, under Section 380 IPC. The Police, on conclusion of the investigation proceeded to submit its chargesheet in the matter being Charge-sheet No. 128/2023 dated 08.09.2023 against the accused person (the petitioner no. 1 herein). The said charge-sheet was so lodged in G.R. Case No. 296/2023, presently pending in the files of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex at Yupia. It is to be noted that the said G.R. Case No. 296/2023, is pending for trial and disposal as on date. 4. It is contended by both the informant and the accused that after registration of the said case and on coming to knowledge that the petitioner no. 2 is a close associate and a family friend of the father of the petitioner no. 1, the matter was stated to have been resolved mutually, by and between the parties and the petitioner no. 2 considering the tender age and future prospect of the petitioner no. 1(accused) proceeded to settle the issue by entering into a Mutual Settlement Agreement on 13.05.2023. 5. In terms of the Mutual Settlement Agreement as entered into in the matter by the accused and the informant, it is noted that the informant had undertaken not to pursue with the FIR as lodged by him on 04.05.2023, corresponding to the G.R. Case No. 296/2023. 5. In terms of the Mutual Settlement Agreement as entered into in the matter by the accused and the informant, it is noted that the informant had undertaken not to pursue with the FIR as lodged by him on 04.05.2023, corresponding to the G.R. Case No. 296/2023. It is also to be noted that the petitioner no. 1(accused) had in the meanwhile appeared for his Senior School Certificate (Class-XII) Examination, 2024 and had cleared the same and is now preparing for appearing in competitive examinations along with preparing for his upcoming University Entrance Examination. It is contended that the petitioner no. 1(accused) had no criminal antecedents and the incident as forming the basis of the FIR dated, 04.05.2023 was something done by him on account of his young age and lack of ability to understand the results of such act on his part. 6. The Sections involved being not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have jointly instituted the present proceedings praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding now pending against the petitioner no. 3. 7. The learned counsels for the parties have made submissions in line with the facts and circumstances and noted herein above in this order. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the parties and also considered the materials available on record. 9. The issue arising in the present proceedings is as to whether this Court has the power, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at between parties. The said issue, was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi V. State of Haryana & Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or could there be lying a rigid formula to be followed by the Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It was further held that it is well settled that these powers have no limit, of course, where there is more power; it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while exercising such powers. Xxxx 11. It was further held that it is well settled that these powers have no limit, of course, where there is more power; it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while exercising such powers. Xxxx 11. The decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi (supra) came to be doubted when the Special Leave Petition in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab came up for hearing before a two bench Judge and accordingly the matter was referred to a larger bench. The larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Gian Singh V. State of Punjab and Anr., Reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that the case of B. S. Joshi (supra) was correctly decided and held as follows:- “58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although 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 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 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 Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and 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. 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 victim and the offender and 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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.” 12. Having considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the context of the power of this Court to quash proceedings involving non-compoundable Sections in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the issue involved in the present proceedings is hereby considered. 13. Having considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the context of the power of this Court to quash proceedings involving non-compoundable Sections in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the issue involved in the present proceedings is hereby considered. 13. It is a settled law that the offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by a criminal Court in purported exercise of its powers conferred under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which is the exclusive domain of legislature. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court, keeping in view of the particular facts and circumstances of the case and for justifiable reasons can invoke the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. 14. This Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of offence and the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. 15. This Court, can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. Criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature can be annulled irrespective of the stage the criminal proceedings are at. 16. Having noticed the powers available to this Court, under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code, the weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in the present proceedings, I am inclined to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the criminal proceedings existing against the petitioner no. 1 for the following reasons:- (1) Firstly, the offence as committed by the petitioner no. 1 for the following reasons:- (1) Firstly, the offence as committed by the petitioner no. 1 being demonstrated to have been so committed without any premeditation and he having expressed his remorseness for the same and having sought apology from the petitioner no. 2, the petitioner no. 2 having accepted such apology; and having contended that he no longer wishes to pursue the criminal case as instituted by him against the petitioner no. 1, no fruitful purpose would be served in the matter, in the event, the criminal proceeding is permitted to continue. (2) Secondly, the offence as committed by the petitioner no. 1 and the same being considered in the light of his conduct subsequently in the matter, including the pursuit by him of his educational career, the offence does not demonstrate mental depravity on the part of the petitioner no. 2 and accordingly, the offence cannot be held to be of a nature, quashing of which, would override public interest. (3) Thirdly, after the initiation of the criminal proceeding, the petitioners having reconciled their differences and a projection having made that they wish to live happily with no enmity and hard feelings and such reconciliation not having demonstrated to be so arrived at basing on any coercion or any compulsion, the Deed of Settlement dated 13.05.2023, being one so entered into by the petitioners in their volition, the conviction of the petitioner no. 1 being remote and bleak in the matter, the quashing of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceeding would not be against public interest. 17. In view of the conclusions reached herein above and having considered the offence involved in the matter and the reconciliation arrived at between the petitioners, this Court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia against the petitioner no. 1, consequently, the G.R. Case No. 296/2023, under Section 380 of the IPC along with the FIR dated 04.05.2023 and the charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 128/2023 dated 08.09.2023, stands quashed. 18. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the above.