JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. S Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been jointly filed by the petitioners, namely, Daiver Ali @ Driver Ali and Mainul Hoque praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No. 419/2024 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Boko under Sections 406 /420 of IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the accused and the petitioner No. 2 is the informant in the said case and both are own brothers. 4. The petitioner No. 2 lodged an FIR before the O/c. Boko Polic Station on 18.19.2023 against the Petitioner No. 1 stating that, on last 14.05.2022, the Petitioner No. 1 went to the house of the Petitioner No. 2 and borrowed an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the Petitioner No. 2 citing his financial hardships but he has not returned the money till today. When the Petitioner No. 2 asked for money, the Petitioner No. 1 on one plea or another did not return the money to the Petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 2 came to know that Petitioner No. 1 has hatched a conspiracy and has taken the money by cheating the petitioner No. 2. Accordingly, after receiving of the written FIR, a case has been registered vide Boko P.S Case No. 439/2023 under Section 406 /420 IPC and started investigation. 5. It is submitted that the true fact of the case is that the petitioner No. 1 intended to sell his plot of land due to want of money and the petitioner No. 2 being the own brother of the petitioner No. 1 had shown interest to purchase the plot of land from the petitioner No. 1. In this regard, the petitioenr No. 2 paid Rs. 7,00,000/- to the petitioner No. 1 on 14.05.2022 but to severe family dispute, the petitioner No. 1 could not give possession of the aforesaid mentioned land to the petitioner No. 2. As such, the petitioner No. 1 assured the petitioner No. 2 that he will return the money to the petitioner No. 2. But unfortunately, in the meantime, the petitioner No. 2 lodged FIR against the petitioner No. 1. 6. As such, the petitioner No. 1 assured the petitioner No. 2 that he will return the money to the petitioner No. 2. But unfortunately, in the meantime, the petitioner No. 2 lodged FIR against the petitioner No. 1. 6. After completion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer of Boko Police Station submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner No. 1 vide charge-sheet No. 37/2024 dated 29.02.2024 under Section 406 /420 IPC before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Boko. 7. Subsequently, the JMFC, Boko took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner No. 1 under Section 406 /20 IPC. It is submitted that subsequently, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the petitioner No. 1 has paid a total amount of Rs. 7 lakhs to the petitioner No. 2 in four separate installment and thereby, cleared/returned the entire amount which he had taken from the petitioner No. 2 and in this regard, money receipt has also been issued by the petitioner No. 2. 8. The instant petition has been jointly preferred by the accused person as well as the alleged victim. 9. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that “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 compromise to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question)s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 10. Further, in the case of Narendra Singh & Ors. Further, in the case of Narendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and when the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and dthe continuation of the criminal cases would be futile, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the criminal proceeding in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court in non-compoundable cases, when the complainant does not want to continue with their own case after their settlement outside the Court. It is further held that “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.” 11. In view of what has been stated in the joint petition filed by the accused as well as the victim, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 has returned back the money to the petitioner No. 2 and no dispute exists as of today. Furthermore, the offence is not of a heinous nature, and in view of the settlement arrived at by the parties, it is extremely unlikely that the petitioner i.e., the victim will depose against the accused petitioner No. 1, and in that event allowing the proceedings, to continue before the learned court below would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 12. In view of above, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petition is allowed. Therefore, I find that this is a fit case where the extra-ordinary power under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 can be invoked to quash the present Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The FIR dated 18.09.2023 under Sections 406 /420 of IPC as well as PRC Case No. 419/2024 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Boko stands set aside and quashed. 13. In terms of the above, criminal petition stands disposed of.