JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. T. Roleng, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 jointly filed by the petitioners for quashing of the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No. 09/2019 corresponding to Kaying P.S. Case No. 10/2017 under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pangin on the basis of mutual settlement between the petitioners. 3. The case set up by the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.09.2017 at 1630 Hrs a written FIR was received from one Ms. Yaleng Yapi (petitioner No.1, herein) of village Gasheng, P.S.- Kaying to the effect that on the night of 23.09.2017 at around 2330 Hrs, 2 (two) persons, namely, Shri Talem Minung (Petitioner No. 2, herein) and Shri Tagum Tali of Kaying village entered into her house by breaking the lock of the door. Shri Talem Minung proposed her for a love affair but she refused the proposal and asked him to leave and also physically assaulted her brother. He also tried to enter into her bedroom forcibly, however, she managed to run away from the house and saved herself. Inspite of that he continues to search her. Later she had to call one of her brother to disperse them. 4. Upon receipt of the above FIR, a case being Kaying P.S. Case No. 10/2017 was registered under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of the investigation, the Police has filed the Charge-Sheet being C.S. No. 14/2017 dated 09.10.2017. 5. The learned CJM, Aalo framed the charge against the petitioner No. 2, namely, Shri Talem Minung under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the G. R. Case No. 41/2018 was transferred to the Court of learned JMFC, Pangin and registered the case being G. R. Case No. 09/2019. 6. Mr. T. Roleng, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the criminal proceeding before the learned JMFC, Pangin, the petitioners have entered into a mutual deed of settlement as being the cousins and neighbours thereby decided to mutually settle the matter outside the Court. He submits that FIR has been lodged against the petitioner No. 2 by the petitioner No. 1 because of misunderstanding and petty quarrel. He submits that FIR has been lodged against the petitioner No. 2 by the petitioner No. 1 because of misunderstanding and petty quarrel. In any case in view of the mutual settlement on the advice of the elders of the family as well as well-wishers, the settlement has been entered into and decided to live cordially as they are cousins and neighbours living in the same village and without there being any coercion or force, the chances of conviction is remote and bleak, which would be abuse of the process of law and otherwise also the same is out of sheer misunderstanding. Therefore, he submits that the criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 09/2019 under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Pangin may be set aside and quashed. 7. Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. PP for the State in her usual fairness submits that having considered the records and in view of the mutual settlement between the petitioners and considering the nature of offence alleged as well as the petitioners are cousins and living in the same village, she would have no serious objection, if the criminal proceeding of G. R. Case No. 09/2019 under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the court of learned JMFC, Pangin is set aside and quashed. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the scanned copy of the trial Court records. 9. On consideration of the materials on record, no doubt the petitioner No. 2 has admitted to have forcibly entered into the house of petitioner No. 1 under the influence of liquor but the facts remains that the petitioners are cousins and are staying in the same village. The petitioners have entered into a mutual settlement and it appears that at the relevant point of time, the parties were not matured enough to understand the consequences of the criminal proceeding. Now, the parties have decided to maintain cordial relationship by settling the matter outside the Court. It appears that even if the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue, it would be just wastage and abuse of the process of the law as well as the parties have settled the matter and would be maintaining cordial relationship with each other, the chances of conviction would be remote and bleak. 10. It appears that even if the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue, it would be just wastage and abuse of the process of the law as well as the parties have settled the matter and would be maintaining cordial relationship with each other, the chances of conviction would be remote and bleak. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has enunciated the law on quashment of criminal proceedings, chargesheet and FIR under section 482, Cr.PC, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , which is reproduced herein below:- “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or 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; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 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 impart 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.” 11. Having considered the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly, considering that the petitioners are cousins and have decided to maintain cordial relationship as well as they are living in the same village and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the present case is one of the cases where the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, 1973 is fit to be invoked. 12. Consequently, the criminal proceeding of G.R. Case No. 09/2019 corresponding to Kaying P.S. Case No. 10/2017 under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside and quashed. 12. Consequently, the criminal proceeding of G.R. Case No. 09/2019 corresponding to Kaying P.S. Case No. 10/2017 under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside and quashed. 13. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and disposed of.