JUDGMENT : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The instant criminal petition has been jointly filed by the petitioners, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for setting aside and quashing of the G.R. Case No. 703/2019 and subsequent Charge Sheet No. 01/2020 dated 08.01.2020, arising out of Doimukh Police Station Case No. 63/2019, registered under Sections 448/427/295/34 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naharlagun, on the basis of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. 3. The brief facts of the case, as reflected from the FIR dated 06.10.2019, lodged by the informant (petitioner No.1), namely Shri Nabam Takar, President of the Doimukh Durga Puja Committee is that on the night of the incident, the Durga Puja idol/statue kept for worship was found broken and damaged, allegedly by some unknown persons. It was further alleged that the said incident hurt the religious sentiments of the devotees and had caused tension in the locality. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered Doimukh Police Station Case No. 63/2019 under the aforementioned Sections. Thereafter, the matter was investigated into and upon completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was filed, vide Charge-sheet No.01/2020 dated 08.01.202, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naharlagun. 5. Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the aforesaid police case is a consequence of the FIR dated 06.10.2019 lodged by the petitioner No.1 against the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 arising out of a minor misunderstanding. It is submitted that although the Investigating Officer has already submitted the charge-sheet, the petitioners have realized that the matter ought not to be prosecuted further, as the alleged incident occurred due to such misunderstanding. Learned counsel further submits that the Durga Puja idol/statue was damaged unintentionally during an altercation that took place at the Durga Puja pandal. It is contended that petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 had gone to the place of occurrence only to inquire as to why a young boy was allegedly assaulted by certain persons near the Durga Puja pandal. It is contended that petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 had gone to the place of occurrence only to inquire as to why a young boy was allegedly assaulted by certain persons near the Durga Puja pandal. However, they were not allowed to enter the Durga Puja premises, which led to an altercation, and in the course of such altercation, the statue was accidentally damaged. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 had no intention to insult any religion or to cause any harm to the place of worship, and the damage caused was purely accidental and unintentional. 6. Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have executed and sworn a Deed of Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 07.05.2026 (Annexure-4), wherein they have categorically declared that there remains no dispute or difference between them and that the complaint/FIR was lodged due to a minor misunderstanding. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 has realized that petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 had no intention whatsoever to insult any religion or to harm the place of worship and that the damage caused to the Durga Puja idol/statue was purely accidental and unintentional. Learned counsel also submits that the settlement arrived at between the parties has restored peace and harmony and that quashing of the criminal proceedings would help in maintaining cordial relations between them in future. He submits that, in view of the aforesaid settlement, petitioner No.1 does not intend to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. However, learned counsel submits that since the offence under Section 295 IPC is non-compoundable, the learned Trial Court is not in a position to act upon the compromise/affidavit under the relevant provisions of law. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers conferred under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State opposes the present joint petition and submits that the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of offences under Sections 448/427/295/34 IPC, including an offence under Section 295 IPC, which relates to damage caused to a place of worship/sacred object, thereby hurting religious sentiments. Learned Addl. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State opposes the present joint petition and submits that the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of offences under Sections 448/427/295/34 IPC, including an offence under Section 295 IPC, which relates to damage caused to a place of worship/sacred object, thereby hurting religious sentiments. Learned Addl. P.P. further submits that the incident pertains to the damage of a Durga Puja idol/statue, which involves public sentiment and has the potential to disturb peace and communal harmony. Therefore, the dispute cannot be treated as purely private in nature. 8. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that since the offence under Section 295 IPC is non-compoundable, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the basis of settlement. He further submits that the investigation has been completed, statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC have been recorded, and charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial in accordance with law. 9. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and has also gone through the materials placed before this Court. 10. It is well settled that this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, if the Court is satisfied that the dispute is essentially private in nature and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. In this regard, reference may be made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 ; Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan , reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 11. In the present case, it is noticed that the dispute arose out of a minor misunderstanding and during an altercation, the Durga Puja idol/statue was allegedly damaged. The petitioners have entered into a Deed of Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 07.05.2026, annexed as Annexure-4 to the petition, and it has been stated that the petitioner No.1/informant does not intend to pursue the matter any longer. The parties have amicably settled their differences and there appears to be no subsisting dispute between them. Though the learned Addl. The petitioners have entered into a Deed of Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 07.05.2026, annexed as Annexure-4 to the petition, and it has been stated that the petitioner No.1/informant does not intend to pursue the matter any longer. The parties have amicably settled their differences and there appears to be no subsisting dispute between them. Though the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition by submitting that the offence under Section 295 IPC involves religious sentiments and is non-compoundable, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR and the materials on record do not indicate any deliberate intention on the part of the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to insult any religion or to harm the place of worship. Rather, it appears that the damage was caused unintentionally during an altercation arising out of misunderstanding. 12. The law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings in non- compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the parties under Section 528 of the BNSS has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors ., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 . The paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “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. 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. 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 (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. 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 (supra) 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.” 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on record, and also considering that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose, particularly when the informant/petitioner No.1 himself has chosen not to support the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak, and continuation of the proceedings would result in unnecessary harassment to the parties and would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, in view of the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan (supra) and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), this Court finds it a fit case to invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 14. Accordingly, the present petition jointly filed by the petitioners is allowed. The G.R. Case No. 703/2019 and subsequent Charge Sheet No. 01/2020 dated 08.01.2020, arising out of Doimukh Police Station Case No. 63/2019, registered under Sections 448/427/295/34 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naharlagun, against the petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, are hereby set aside and quashed. 15. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed.