JUDGMENT & ORDER : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. T. Dada, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional P.P. representing the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed jointly by the petitioners, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside of the Seppa Women P.S. Case No. 13/2022, under Section 498A/323 of the IPC, along with the Charge-sheet No. 18/2022 and the connected criminal proceeding in Seppa Women P.S. Case No. 13/2022 (GR Case No. 69/2022), registered under Sections 498A/323 of the IPC, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District. 3. The Seppa Women P.S. Case No. 13/2022, under Sections 498A/323 of the IPC, was registered on the strength of a written complaint, dated 17.08.2022, lodged by the petitioner no. 2, alleging that she was subjected to physical, economic and mental assault by the petitioner no. 1 due to his alleged extra-marital affair with another woman. 4. On receipt of the FIR, a case was registered against the petitioner no. 2, vide G.R. Case No. 69/2022 under the aforementioned sections against the petitioner no. 2. 5. On submission of the Charge-sheet, cognizance of the case was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, and charges under Sections 498A/323 of the IPC, were framed against the petitioner no. 1, vide order dated 29.06.2023, which is pending at the stage of evidence before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have filed this joint petition for ensuring the peaceful continuity and stability of their marital relationship. It is contended that the petitioner no. 2 wants to put an end to the criminal proceeding pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa in order to ensure continued stability and non-disruption of their harmonious marital life and for the future of their children. It is contended that any conviction to the petitioner no. 1 would destroy their family and have immense ramifications on their children and marriage. It is contended by the petitioners that looking into the aforementioned reasons, the petitioners have executed a Deed of Settlement dated 22.10.2025 at Seppa, whereby, they have agreed to resolve their disputes amicably. It was also agreed that the petitioner no. 1 would destroy their family and have immense ramifications on their children and marriage. It is contended by the petitioners that looking into the aforementioned reasons, the petitioners have executed a Deed of Settlement dated 22.10.2025 at Seppa, whereby, they have agreed to resolve their disputes amicably. It was also agreed that the petitioner no. 2 would like to settle/compound the dispute in connection with the aforesaid case for the ends of justice and would like not to pursue the aforesaid G.R. Case, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid Deed of Settlement arrived at by and between the parties as well as the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases, wherein, the parties have come to an amicable settlement to settle their disputes. The learned counsel further submits that the parties, during the course of the trial and with the passage of time, have amicably resolved all their disputes and misunderstandings and the parties have confirmed and declared that they have amicably resolved their disputes. It is further submitted that they wish to bring the proceeding in the spirit of peace to a closure. It is further submitted that no good purpose would be served in taking the proceeding pending before the learned CJM, Seppa, in connection with the aforesaid case, ahead and the continuation of the same will be a futile exercise and wastage of judicial time. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that the instant petition should be allowed by quashing the proceeding against the petitioner no. 1 pending before the learned CJM, Seppa. 8. Mr. G. Tado, the learned Additional P.P. submits that in view of the Deed of Settlement dated 22.10.2025, arrived at by the parties, he does not have any objection if the prayer made by the parties are allowed. 9. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it may be relevant at this stage to refer to the case of Shiji alias Pappu and Ors., Vs. Radhika and Another, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, in paragraph-17 has held as under: - “ 17. 9. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it may be relevant at this stage to refer to the case of Shiji alias Pappu and Ors., Vs. Radhika and Another, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, in paragraph-17 has held as under: - “ 17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C.” 10. In the case of Jagdish Chanana and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 704 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 2 & 3 has held as under: - “ 2. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court Crl. Misc. Petition No. 42 of 2008 has been filed putting on record a compromise deed dated 30-4-2007. The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in Court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. 3. 3. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No. 83 dated 12-3-2005, PS City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings.” 11. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors., Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, after discussing several judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, including the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 in similar circumstances, has laid down the following principles which are quoted herein below: - “ 16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject. may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim has settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction his remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 12. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 12. In this connection, it may be relevant to refer to the propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) . The relevant portion of paragraph-61 of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is reproduced herein below: - “ 61. …… But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavor 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 the 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….” 13. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. , reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, after taking into account the fact that the dispute between the parties arose from their marital relationship and that they had already resolved their entire disputes among themselves, even if, the proceedings are allowed to be continued, the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak, for ends of justice, allowed the petition for quashing. It may be relevant herein, to reproduce paragraph-15.5 of the aforesaid case. “ 15.5. It may be relevant herein, to reproduce paragraph-15.5 of the aforesaid case. “ 15.5. 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 etc.” 14. In the instant case in hand, it is seen that the allegations against each other is personal in nature without having any possible influence on the society at large. It is also apparent that no heinous or serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape, dacoity or any such nature is involved in the allegations made against each other by the parties in the instant cases. It is also seen from the facts and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the possibility of conviction of the accused/petitioner no. 1 is remote and therefore, the continuation of such criminal proceeding would be a futile exercise and wastage of time. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions and after consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties as well as the materials available on record and taking into account the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the instant criminal petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside of the proceedings i.e., the Seppa Women P.S. Case No. 13/2022, under Section 498A/323 of the IPC, along with the Charge-sheet No. 18/2022 and the connected criminal proceeding in Seppa Women P.S. Case No. 13/2022 (GR Case No. 69/2022), registered under Sections 498A/323 of the IPC, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District. 16. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of, in terms of the direction indicated herein above. 17. Sent back the TCR.