Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040019192025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./261/2025 Moge Tamuk and Anr Son of Late Jobi Tamuk, resident of Village Rani, PO and PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Taling Talom Age: Occupation : Son of Late Takum Talom resident of Village Oyan PO and PS Oyan East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Teto Taba, Punung Borang,Nimcha Hondique,Nang walika Jenow,Vijay Duku Raji,C Ering,Begi Taba Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 11.02.2026 Heard Mr. B. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This joint application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside G.R. Case No. 09/2019 arising out of Oyan P.S. Case No. 02/2019, registered under Sections 447/385/506/511 of the IPC, which is pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pasighat, East Siang District. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the alleged accused, and petitioner No. 2 is the complainant/victim in the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 09/2019 arising out of Oyan P.S. Case No. 02/2019. 4. The brief fact of the case is that; petitioner No. 2 lodged an FIR on 10.01.2019 against petitioner No. 1 alleging that he had threatened him and demanded money without any reason. Upon receipt of the said information, Oyan P.S. Case No. 02/2019 under Sections 447/393/398/506 of the IPC was registered, and investigation was taken up. Subsequently, a charge-sheet being C.S. No. 02/2019 was submitted under Sections 447/385/506 of the IPC. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, charges were framed on 17.07.2025 against accused/petitioner No. 1 under Sections 447/385/506/511 of the IPC. The matter is presently pending for trial before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. 5. Mr. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that during the Page No.# 3/4 pendency of the trial of the case, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties by execution of a mutual settlement agreement dated 13.11.2025. He further submitted that petitioner No. 2/victim expressed that he is not willing to proceed with the matter any further, as the incident arose due to a misunderstanding between him and the petitioner No. 1. He further submitted that the petitioner No. 2 has no further grievance against petitioner No. 1 and does not wish to pursue the matter further. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the matter has been amicably settled and there is no likelihood of conviction, the proceeding of the case against petitioner No. 1 may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS. 7. Mr. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, considering that the incident allegedly occurred due to a misunderstanding and that petitioner No. 2 has no further grievance and does not wish to pursue the matter, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 9. The present case arose out of the alleged threat and demand made by petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 2 without any justifiable reason. However, the parties have amicably settled the matter, and petitioner No. 2/victim now has no further grievance against accused/petitioner No. 1 and does not wish to pursue the case. The dispute appears to be personal in nature and does not affect society at large. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be only a remote possibility of conviction. In view of the above, continuation of Page No.# 4/4 the criminal proceedings against the accused would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of power under 482 of the Code can quashed the criminal proceeding even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society on the ground that there is settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender. 11. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in[(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in[(2014) 6 SCC 466], as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (supra), where the Apex Court has permitted quashing of proceedings even in non-compoundable offence in cases involved in private disputes which do not affect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case, where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 09/2019, arising out of Oyan P.S. Case No. 02/2019, registered and framed charges under Sections 447/385/506/511 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pasighat, East Siang District, against the accused, Shri Moge Tamuk (Petitioner No. 1), are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 13. With the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant