ORDER :

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) filed jointly for quashing of criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 45 of 2017 under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act pending in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Mawkyrwat.

2. Brief facts may be noticed.

3. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that the criminal machinery was set into motion upon the institution of the FIR by the petitioner No. 2 on 22.08.2017 before the Officer-in-Charge, Mawkyrwat Police Station, Mawkyrwat to the effect that he had uploaded her videos with him in social media without her consent. Thereafter, the police registered a case being Sadar Police Station G.R. Case No. 45 of 2017 under Section 506 IPC read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act. On completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner No. 1 under Section 506 IPC read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act being charge sheet No. 23/2017 dated 22.08.2017 and the case is still pending adjudication before the Additional District Magistrate (J), South West Khasi Hills District being G.R. Case No. 45 of 2017 under Section 506 IPC read with Section 67A of I.T. Act. According to the petitioner No. 1, during the pendency of the instant case, he and petitioner No. 2 have amicably settled the matter and had also entered into a Deed of Compromise dated 27.07.2019.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner No. 1 that he and petitioner No. 2 had also agreed and made a statement before the learned Additional District Magistrate (J), South West Khasi Hills District on 02.08.2019 in which they have both stated that they have settled the matter between them and does not want to pursue with the instant case as they are now living as husband and wife and also wish to start a new life as a family together.

5. Petitioner No. 1 asserts that a Compromise Deed dated 25.07.2019 had been entered into between him and petitioner No. 2 and she does not want to pursue with the matter any further as such continuance of subsequent proceedings in G.R. Case No. 45 of 2017 in Sadar Police Station under Section 506 IPC read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act would not serve any purpose. Hence, the present petition for quashing the FIR under Section 506 IPC read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act dated 22.08.2017 and also G.R. Case No. 45 of 2017.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner No. 1 submits that the statement of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 on oath has been recorded in the Trial Court on 02.08.2019 appended at Annexure-IV along with this petition.

7. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Apex Court therein has laid down broad principles and guidelines for quashing of FIR on the basis of settlement between the parties. It has also laid down that quashment of the proceedings depends on facts and circumstances of each case.

8. The broad principles enumerated in Narinder Singh's case (supra) are as under:-

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petiti