JUDGMENT : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. T. Tamin, 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 BNSS , 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside the GR. Case No.630/2018, corresponding to Itanagar Women P.S. Case No.99/2018, arising out of FIR dated 07.11.2028, registered under Sections 498A/323 of the IPC , 1860, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, on the basis of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the petitioner No.2 had lodged an FIR against the petitioner No.2 on 07.11.2018 before the Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station, Itanagar, alleging mental harassment and physical assault by her husband. The complainant (petitioner No. 1) alleged in the FIR that after their marriage, certain domestic disputes arose between them from the year 2017. On one occasion, an altercation took place between them on account of the alleged extra-marital affair of the petitioner No. 2, during which the complainant was allegedly assaulted by the petitioner No. 2. Subsequently, the matrimonial dispute between the parties was intervened in by their family members and was amicably settled locally in the year 2018. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 99/2018 under the aforementioned sections. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the Court of the learned JMFC, Yupia vide Charge sheet No.09/2019 dated 30.01.2019. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the dispute between the parties, who are the husband and wife, have amicably been resolved and they have entered into a mutual settlement agreement dated 04.02.2026. By the said agreement, both the parties have pardoned each other and agreed to maintain peace, harmony and cordial relations in future, and that no such disputes shall arise between them henceforth. It is further submitted that the deed of mutual settlement was executed by both the parties voluntarily, without any force or coercion, before the Public Notary, Papumpare District, dated 06.02.2026, which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the petition. It is further submitted that the deed of mutual settlement was executed by both the parties voluntarily, without any force or coercion, before the Public Notary, Papumpare District, dated 06.02.2026, which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the petition. The learned counsel submits that the complainant (petitioner No.1) has no further grievance against the petitioner No.2 and does not wish to pursue the case any longer. The learned counsel submits that as the dispute was purely matrimonial in nature and has now been amicably settled, the possibility of conviction of the accused is remote if the proceedings are allowed to continue. However, since the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC is non-compoundable, the present application has been filed before this Court seeking setting aside and quashing of the proceedings. 6. Ms. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also fairly submitted that since the dispute is in between the wife and husband, which is a matrimonial in nature and under the circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction of the accused person. Therefore, she has no objection to the prayer made by the petitioners considering the settlement of the dispute between the parties. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Although the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC is a non-compoundable offence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the catena of judgments, including the decision in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has held that in cases involving matrimonial disputes where the parties have amicably settled the matter, the High Court in exercise of the inherent powers provided under of the Cr.P.C. (528 of BNSS , 2023) and quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. 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 . 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 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 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 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 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 . 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. 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. 12. Having regard to the facts and considering that the petitioners have filed this petition jointly after amicably settling the disputes between the husband and the wife, 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 cases of Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra) and Gian Singh (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. Consequently, the proceedings in GR. Case No.630/2018, corresponding to Itanagar Women P.S. Case No.99/2018, arising out of FIR dated 07.11.2028, registered under Sections 498A/323 of the IPC , 1860, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, are hereby quashed and set aside. 13. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed.