Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040016302025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./218/2025 Smti Yanga Mara and 4 Ors Wife of Shri Subash Nidak, presently residing at Chimpu Forest Corporation, PO RK Mission, PS Chimpu, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Miss Yamak Mara Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Riabu Mara resident of Village Mara PO and PS Taliha Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Tara Mara Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Kiora Mara permanent resident of Village Mara PO and PS Taliha Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Tania Kena Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tasar Kena permanent resident of Village Giba PO and PS Dumporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Miss Gyamar Ashna Age: Occupation : Page No.# 2/7 Daughter of Shri Gyamar Siang present resident of Polo Colony Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Gyati Tadi, Taba Penka Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 30.10.2025 Heard Mr. G. Tadi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application jointly filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing of criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1058/2024, arising out of Papu Hill P.S. Case NO. 73/2024, under Sections 74/115(2)/126(1)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 on the basis of settlement entered between the petitioners. 3. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 14.10.2024, a written F.I.R. was received from one Miss Gyamar Ashna (petitioner No. 5 herein) of Polo Page No.# 3/7 Colony, Naharlagun alleging that on 13.10.2024, at about 2130 hours, while she was walking with her old friend Shri Subash Nidak at Railway Station, Naharlagun, Mrs. Yanga Mara (petitioner No. 1 herein) and her group consisting of 10 (ten) male and female attacked her with iron rod on her head and put chili powder in her eyes. On receipt of the said F.I.R., Papu Hills P.S. Case No. 73/2024, under Sections 74/118(1)/126(1)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, was registered. On completion of the investigation, having found prima facie case established, a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 under Sections 74/115(2)/126(1)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, which is pending for taking cognizance before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 4. Mr. G. Tadi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that due to misunderstanding between the petitioner No. 1 and 5, a scuffle took place leading to lodging of the F.I.R. against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 by the petitioner No. 5. He submits that during the scuffle, there was attack and counter attack between the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and petitioner No. 5, which resulted in simple injury to the petitioner No. 5. The matter in fact pertains to claim and counter claims with regard to extra-marital affairs. However, being the neighbours and having realized their misunderstandings, the parties, by a settlement agreement dated 30.08.2025, have amicably settled the matter to maintain peace and harmony amongst themselves. Therefore, Mr. Tadi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the petitioner No. 5 is no longer willing to pursue the matter, the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1058/2024, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 may be quashed, as the chances of conviction against Page No.# 4/7 the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 is bleak and remote, rather the continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. 5. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that since the petitioners have settled the matter amongst themselves and the nature of injury is simple in nature, the prosecution would not have any objection if this Court pass an appropriate order quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Trial Court Records. 7. Record reveals that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, on being interrogated, have accepted that on 13.10.2024, at around 2130 hours to 2300 hours, they had an argument with the petitioner No. 5 at Railway Track near Railway Station Naharlagun followed by a scuffle, in which the petitioner No. 5 has sustained minor injury. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have also assaulted one Shri Subash Nidak, who had also sustained simple injury. Considering above, it is seen that a prima facie case against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 appears to be established so far as the investigation report is concerned. However, the complainant/victim and the accused persons have entered into a settlement on 30.08.2025 having realized that the incident had arisen out of misunderstanding between the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 5. The settlement has been entered into on the intervention of the family members and well wishers of both sides, wherein the petitioners have agreed to maintained peace and harmony amongst themselves. Page No.# 5/7 8. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held, which is reproduced here-in-below: “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 IPC 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 IPC 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 IPC 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 IPC. 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; Page No.# 6/7 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.” 9. Reverting back to the present case, as noted above, although the charge- sheet has been filed and the accused/ petitioners have caused an injury to the victim/petitioner No. 5, which is simple in nature, since the parties have settled the matters amicably on the intervention of their family members and well wishers to maintain peace and harmony amongst themselves, I am of the considered view that continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of process of law as it would not be possible for the prosecution to establish the case against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in view of the fact that the parties have settled the matters and the chances of conviction of the accused persons remains bleak. Thus, this Court is of the view that the present case is one of the cases wherein the inherent power of this Court may be invoked. 10. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the present is a fit case for invoking the inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to secure the ends of justice. 11. Accordingly, criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1058/2024, arising out of Papu Hill P.S. Case No. 73/2024, under Sections 74/115(2)/126(1)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, is hereby quashed. Page No.# 7/7 12. Criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant