JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. T. Gameh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application jointly filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for quashment of the criminal proceedings arising out of Papu Hills Police Station Case No. 37/2024, registered under Sections 115/85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1293/2024, against the accused, Shri Techi Natung, the petitioner No. 2 herein, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, on the basis of a settlement between the parties. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 23.07.2024, the petitioner No. 1, Smti Janette Gautami Techi, lodged a written F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge of Papu Hills Police Station, inter alia alleging that her husband, the petitioner No. 2 herein had assaulted her at their residence in Lower Borum Village due to marital discord arising from his extra-marital affair and that he had assaulted her on various other occasions. 4. Based on the F.I.R., the Police registered Papu Hills Police Station Case No.37/2024 under Sections 115/85 of the BNS, 2023. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Charge-sheet No. 54/2024 under Sections 115/85 of the BNS, 2023 on 16.10.2024 against petitioner No. 2 and the matter is now pending trial before the Court of the learned CJM, Yupia. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No. 1, the wife, and the petitioner No. 2, the husband. Due to misunderstanding, the petitioner No. 1 lodged the F.I.R. In the meantime, the parties entered into an agreement on 03.09.2024 and amicably settled the matter with the intervention of their relatives and family members. In the agreement, the parties decided to continue their marital relationship and they are now living together happily with their children. The informant, petitioner No. 1, no longer has any grievance against her husband and accordingly, filed an application before the Officer-in-Charge, Papu Hills Police Station, for withdrawal of the case against petitioner No. 2 on 04.09.2024. In the agreement, the parties decided to continue their marital relationship and they are now living together happily with their children. The informant, petitioner No. 1, no longer has any grievance against her husband and accordingly, filed an application before the Officer-in-Charge, Papu Hills Police Station, for withdrawal of the case against petitioner No. 2 on 04.09.2024. Therefore, it is submitted that the continuation of proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1293/2024, pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, would serve no purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The petitioners, therefore, pray for the quashing of the said criminal proceedings. 6. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, in her usual fairness, submits that since the dispute appears to be purely between husband and wife and arises out of a matrimonial discord, the chances of conviction of the accused appear to be bleak as the parties have already reconciled and resolved their differences. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be a sheer waste of time, and she has no objection to the quashing of the proceedings. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record, including the scanned copy of the Trial Court Record. 8. The petitioners are husband and wife and due to matrimonial discord and allegations of an extra-marital affair against petitioner No. 2, an F.I.R. was lodged by petitioner No. 1, alleging assault by petitioner No. 2. During the pendency of the case, the petitioners entered into an agreement on 03.09.2024 and amicably settled the matter, deciding to continue their marital relationship together. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 filed an application for withdrawal of the F.I.R. on 04.09.2024. The record also reflects that petitioner No. 2 had assaulted petitioner No. 1 on various other occasions, causing injuries of a simple nature. Accordingly, on completion of investigation, having found a prima facie case under Sections 115/85 of the BNS, 2023, charge-sheet was filed against petitioner No. 2 and the case is now pending trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 9. 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 Vs. 9. 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 Vs. 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. 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. 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.” 10. Reverting back to the present case, as noted above, although the charge- sheet has been filed under Sections 115/85 of BNS, 2023 and the petitioner No. 2 has caused an injury to the petitioner No. 1, which is simple in nature, since the parties have settled the matters amicably on intervention of their relatives and family members and now living peacefully as husband and wife, I am of the considered view that continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner No. 2 would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of process of law as it would not be possible for the prosecution to establish the case against the petitioner No. 2 in view of the settlement arrived at between them. Thus, this Court is of the view that the present case is one of the cases wherein the inherent power of this Court may be invoked. 11. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the present is a fit case for invoking the inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to secure the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings arising out of Papu Hills Police Station Case No. 37/2024, registered under Sections 115/85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1293/2024, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia is hereby set aside and quashed. 13. The criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of.