ORDER : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. N. Yubbey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application jointly filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023, praying for setting aside and quashing of the FIR dated 04.08.2025, registered as Seijosa P.S. Case No. 07/2025 under Sections 117(2)/109(1)/351(2) of the BNS, 2023, and subsequent Charge-sheet No.09/2025 dated 04.11.2025, corresponding to GR Case No.49/2025, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 3. An FIR dated 04.08.2025 was lodged by one Shri Lali Tachang (petitioner No.2) against the petitioner No.1 alleging, inter alia, that on 24.07.2025 at around 8:30 PM, the alleged accused (petitioner No.1) came to Mobuso-li village, which is the plot of land of the informant (petitioner No. 2) situated near his residence at Seijosa, District Pakke Kessang. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 came to pick up shuttering planks as instructed by his elder brother, whereupon a dispute arose between the informant and the accused regarding the said shuttering planks. It is further alleged that without any provocation, the accused/petitioner No.1 assaulted the informant/petitioner No.2 by punching and striking him with a wooden stick, and also kicked him on the chest. It is alleged that the accused/petitioner No.1 threatened to kill the informant/petitioner No.2 and destroy his Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. AR01K3068. It is further alleged that the accused/petitioner No.1 attempted to assault the informant/petitioner No.2 with a large wooden plank, and the informant/petitioner No.2 could save himself only due to the intervention of an unknown person. Later, the informant/petitioner No.2 was taken to the hospital for treatment. It is stated that the informant/petitioner No.2 is a 60% orthopaedically disabled person. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered Seijosa P.S. Case No. 07/2025 under Sections 117(2)/109(1)/351(2) of the BNS, 2023. Thereafter, the matter was investigated into and upon completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was filed, vide Charge-sheet No.09/2025 dated 04.11.2025, which is pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa. 5. Mr. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered Seijosa P.S. Case No. 07/2025 under Sections 117(2)/109(1)/351(2) of the BNS, 2023. Thereafter, the matter was investigated into and upon completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was filed, vide Charge-sheet No.09/2025 dated 04.11.2025, which is pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa. 5. Mr. Yubbey, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the criminal proceeding arose out of a dispute which occurred on 24.07.2025, when a disagreement took place between the petitioners regarding the removal of wooden planks. It is submitted that during the course of the dispute, the petitioner No.1 assaulted the petitioner No.2, as a result of which the FIR was lodged and the case was registered. Learned counsel further submits that subsequently, the matter was amicably settled between the parties through a community meeting (Mel) held on 25.09.2025 at Seijosa, attended by about 129 members, including relatives, Gaon Burahs and local leaders. It is submitted that the parties have executed a Deed of Mutual Settlement Agreement on the same day before the Executive Magistrate, Seijosa, which is annexed as Annexure-B to the petition, wherein the parties have voluntarily and out of their own free will have decided to amicably settle their differences. It is further submitted that both parties have undertaken not to pursue the proceedings against each other in respect of the aforesaid FIR and have agreed to maintain peace and harmony without interfering in each other’s personal, family or business affairs in future. 6. Learned counsel further submits that despite the settlement, the police submitted the charge-sheet on 20.11.2025, and though the FIR was registered under Sections 117(2)/109(1)/351(2) BNS, the charge-sheet was filed under Section 117(2) BNS, 2023. It is submitted that thereafter, the case was registered as G.R. Case No. 49/2025 and summons/notice was issued to the petitioner No.1 to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa. Learned counsel further submits that since some of the offences involved are non-compoundable in nature, the trial court has no power to compound the same without an appropriate order of this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel further submits that since some of the offences involved are non-compoundable in nature, the trial court has no power to compound the same without an appropriate order of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings, as continuation of the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of law, particularly when the parties have already settled the matter voluntarily to maintain cordial relations. 7. Mr. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the dispute appears to have been amicably resolved between the parties. He further submits that the complainant (petitioner No.2) has expressed his no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings and has also stated that he does not intend to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. In view of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties and considering the fact that the complainant is no longer willing to pursue the case any longer, the learned Addl. P.P. submits that the possibility of conviction of the accused appears to be remote. Therefore, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners quashing the proceedings of the case is allowed. 8. 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. 9. On the agreement of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court has decided to dispose of the matter at the motion stage itself. 10. Although the offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS is non- compoundable, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions including Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has held that even in respect of non-compoundable offences, the High Court may, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023), quash the criminal proceedings where the parties have amicably settled the dispute, in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of Court. 11. In the instant case in hand, it is seen that the allegations levelled by the parties against each other are personal in nature, without having any possible influence on the society at large. 11. In the instant case in hand, it is seen that the allegations levelled by the parties against each other are 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 are involved in the allegations made against each other by the parties in the instant case. It is also seen from the facts and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties that the possibility of conviction of any of the parties is remote and bleak, and therefore, the continuation of such criminal proceeding would be a futile exercise and a wastage of time. 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, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayan (supra) and Gian Singh (supra) , this Court finds it fit to invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 14. Consequently, the FIR dated 04.08.2025, registered on 05.08.2025 as Seijosa P.S. Case No. 07/2025 under Sections 117(2)/109(1)/351(2) of the BNS, 2023, and subsequent Charge-sheet No.09/2025 dated 04.11.2025, corresponding to GR Case No.49/2025, against the petitioner No.1, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, are hereby quashed and set aside. 15. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed.