JUDGMENT :

Petitioner No. 1, Shri Jelly Pagia Dolo; petitioner No. 2, Shri Jackie Rimo, both are accused; and petitioner No. 3, Shri Ngurang Taka, who is the informant of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 225/2018, under Sections 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively have approached this Court, jointly, by filing the present petition for quashing the F.I.R. of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 225/2018, under Sections 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code, by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:-

“On 06.08.2018, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, at about 10.30 a.m., entered into the shop of Shri Ngurang Taka, situated at Ganga Market, in the name and style M/S Maa Kali Traders and demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) only and threatened to face dire consequences to the staffs. Also the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have forcefully taken away some articles from M/S Ganesh Pan Bhandar at Akashdeep Market, Itanagar. On receipt of one F.I.R. to that effect from petitioner No. 3, Shri Ngurang Taka, the Officer-In-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, registered Itanagar P.S. Case No. 225/2018, under Section 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigated the same, which culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, under Section 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code. While the case was pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have entered into a settlement agreement and resolved the dispute amongst themselves and on the basis of the said settlement deed, they approached this Court by filing the present petition.”

3. Heard Mr. T. J. Dogum, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

4. Mr. T. J. Dogum, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties and they have also entered into a settlement deed and on the basis of which, they approached this Court for quashing the F.I.R. and Charge-Sheet, as the offence under Sections 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable offence. It is, therefore, contended to allow the petition.

5. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, submits that as the matter has been resolved between the parties and as the offences are not serous in nature involving mental depravity, the State has not objection in the event of allowing the petition.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record.

7. It appears that the parties have approached this Court on the basis of the settlement deed, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-VI. Perusal of the same reveals that the parties have amicably resolved, agreed and settled their disputes outside the Court and they have agreed to live in peace and harmony and the petitioner No. 3 agreed to withdraw the complaint, being lodged by him before the Itanagar Police Station, and the parties have decided not to proceed with the matter before any Court and without any influence or threat or coercion or fraud, they have signed the settlement deed with full consent and knowledge. It also appears that the case was registered on the basis of one F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner No. 3. And of course, in the F.I.R. it has also been mentioned that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have also took away some of the articles from the shop M/S Ganesh Pan Bhandar of Akashdeep Market, Itanagar. But being the President of Itanagar Market Welfare Association (IMWA), Shri Yumlam Achung, also signed the deed as witness and he represents the business community of the said market. And as such, not arraying of the owner of Ganesh Pan Bhandar would cause no prejudice to either party.

8. It is worth noting that While dealing with the issue of quashing the F.I.R. on t