ORDER :

Heard Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned PP for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.PC, 1973 has been jointly filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings in GR case No. 574/2014 corresponding to Itanagar PS case No. 150/2014 under Sections 120B/452/326/324/427/34 IPC pending before the CJM, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh on the basis of compromise/settlement.

3. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR dated 11.07.2014 was lodged by petitioner No. 6 against petitioner Nos. 1 to 5, alleging interalia that a group of people led by petitioner No, 1 entered into the dwelling place of petitioner No. 6 and assaulted him. The name of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were mentioned in the FIR as they have came to the dwelling place of petitioner No. 6 to discuss about the ongoing dispute within the SUMA executive body and they were the executive member of Shri Biri Tabin faction. Just thereafter, large numbers of members came to his house and commotion started whereby he received cut injury so the petitioner No. 6 mentioned their names in the FIR.

4. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were arrested by the police on 22.07.2014 and was released on bail. After completion of the investigation on 08.08.2014, the police submitted the charge-sheet being charge-sheet No. 223/14 whereby the GR Case No. 574/2014 was registered against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 under Sections 120B/452/326/324/427/34. However, the CJM, Yupia has framed the charges under Section 120B/452/326/324/427/34 IPC against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 which is pending before the learned CJM, Yupia.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR dated 11.07.2014 was a result of misunderstanding and miscommunication that arose solely because of the circumstances that led to believe that petitioner No. 1 and a few others attacked and assaulted the petitioner no. 6. Before the incident, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 came to the dwelling place of petitioner No. 6 to discuss union matter, however on the refusal by the petitioner No. 6 stating that it was already midnight and asked them to leave as it was not the right time to discuss any union matters, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 left the house. Thereafter, on carefully recalling the incident, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were not present during the time of the incident. The incident occurred in a large group commotion and exactly who caused the injury was also not ascertained. Thus the matter was mutually settled even before the charge-sheet was filed, but there was no formal agreement to that effect.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that though the matter between the petitioners was already settled verbally in 2014 itself without any written agreement, the parties have agreed to enter into a deed of mutual settlement on the ground that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were not involved in the commotion and the offences under the aforesaid sections against the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are not compoundable offences and the trial court is not in a position to consider the settlement agreement if submitted by the petitioners in terms of Section 320 Cr.PC. Since the parties have mutually settled the matter amongst themselves and the present Criminal proceeding was a result of misunderstanding and miscommunication among the petitioners and in order to keep cordial relationship among friends, the said agreement dated 17.11.2022 has been entered into by way of compromise/settlement.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 6 has already deposed before the learned Trial Court of the true fact of the case that the present accused persons, i.e., petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were not the persons who assaulted him but rather stated that the assailants were completely unknown to him. The instant case cropped up due to the misunderstanding and miscommunication and the petitioner No. 6 lodge