ORDER : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, 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 GR. Case No.02/2024 and subsequent Charge-sheet No.01/2024 dated 27.08.2024, arising out of Tawang Women P.S. Case No.01/2024, registered under Sections 354(C)/292(A)/500 of the IPC read with Sections 66(E)/67/67(A) of the IT Act, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the registration of the FIR dated 18.01.2024 is that the complainant (petitioner No.1) came into contact with the accused (petitioner No. 2) in the year 2022 while she was working as a casual paid labour under 125 RCC, GREF, Khrimu, where the petitioner No.1 was working as a Mistry. During the said period, the petitioner No.2 obtained the mobile number of the complainant and frequently contacted her. Thereafter, he developed a relationship with the complainant by concealing his marital status. It is alleged in the FIR that in January, 2023, the complainant came to know that the petitioner No.2 was already married to Smti. Kunsang Lhamu, whereafter the matter was brought before the Gaon Burah (GB), Khrimu and was settled amicably. It is further alleged that on 17.01.2024, the petitioner No.1 came to know that an obscene video of her, recorded during the said relationship, was being circulated on social media/WhatsApp groups. It is alleged that the petitioner No.2 circulated the said video with the intention to defame and humiliate her. It is stated that the said video was circulated in the WhatsApp group namely Wel Come to Ling Room and was forwarded from mobile number 7303337686. On enquiry, one Mr. Sonam Dargey of Seru village informed the complainant that he had received the said video from another WhatsApp group. Accordingly, she lodged the FIR against the petitioner No.2 and other unknown persons involved in forwarding the said video. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered a case vide Tawang Women P.S. Case No. 01/2024 dated 18.01.2024 under the aforesaid Sections. Accordingly, she lodged the FIR against the petitioner No.2 and other unknown persons involved in forwarding the said video. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered a case vide Tawang Women P.S. Case No. 01/2024 dated 18.01.2024 under the aforesaid Sections. Thereafter, the matter was investigated into and upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet vide Charge- sheet No. 01/2024 dated 27.08.2024 under Sections 354(C)/292(A)/500 IPC read with Sections 66(E)/67/67(A) of the IT Act, which is pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tawang. 5. Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the police have filed the charge-sheet, the petitioners have realised that the matter ought not to be prosecuted further as the parties are presently residing peacefully in the same locality and the criminal proceedings arose due to a misunderstanding. It is further submitted that the video in question was recorded consensually by the petitioners and the device used for recording the same was damaged and was not in the possession of the petitioner No.2. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.2 had no knowledge regarding circulation of the said video and came to know about the same only through his friend. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have amicably settled their disputes and executed a Deed of Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 31.01.2025, which is annexed as Annexure- 4 (series) to the petition. However, the original agreement has been misplaced and only a photograph of the same remains with the petitioner No.1. Thereafter, a fresh deed of settlement was executed by the petitioners on 27.04.2026, wherein the petitioner No.1 has undertaken not to pursue the case any further. The petitioner No.1 has also expressed no objection to the quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings. It is further submitted that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence, with the intervention of well-wishers and family members, in order to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the possibility of conviction is remote if the proceedings are allowed to continue. 7. Ms. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the possibility of conviction is remote if the proceedings are allowed to continue. 7. Ms. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the dispute appears to have been amicably resolved between the parties. She further submits that the complainant (petitioner No.1) has categorically expressed her no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings and has also stated that she 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 Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the possibility of conviction of the accused appears to be remote. Therefore, she 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. 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. 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.” 11. In view of the aforesaid settlement of the matter and considering that the offence alleged to have been committed is not a major offence or a heinous crime having a serious impact on society, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is one where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 can be invoked, as the chances of conviction are far too bleak and remote and the continuance of such proceedings in the present case would be futile and an abuse of the process of law. 12. Having regard to the facts and considering that the petitioners have filed this petition jointly after amicably settling the disputes between the parties, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would only cause harassment to the parties, which would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Further, taking into account the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra) , this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant case is one where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS could be invoked. 13. Further, taking into account the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra) , this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant case is one where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS could be invoked. 13. Consequently, G.R. Case No. 02/2024 and the subsequent Charge-sheet No. 01/2024 dated 27.08.2024, arising out of Tawang Women P.S. Case No. 01/2024, registered under Sections 354(C)/292(A)/500 IPC read with Sections 66(E)/67/67(A) of the IT Act, pending against the petitioner No.2 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tawang, are hereby quashed and set aside. 14. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed.