Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040002232025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./27/2025 Smti Merry Gyadi and 5 Ors Wife of Shri Deepak Tallang, presently residing at Bebo Colony Seppa, PO and PS Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Sunday Gyadi (Minor) Age: Occupation : represented by his father Shri Tapuk Gyadi presently residing at LC Line Colony Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Dai Tallang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Hassang Tallang presently residing at Bebo Colony Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Deepak Tallang Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Dai Tallang presently residing at Bebo Colony Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Smti Napi Chiri Age: Page No.# 2/7 Occupation : Wife of Shri Deepak Tallang resident of Village Chiri PO Debeyar PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at presently at Bebo Colony Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Tado Chiri Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nangram Chiri resident of Village Chiri PO Debeyar PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, Honi Tana Tara,Karmu Chotton,Oken Duggong Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 28.01.2026 Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing of the Bomdila Session Case No. 08/2024 arising out Page No.# 3/7 of the FIR dated 09.05.2024, under Section 120(B)/458/307of IPC. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the present application has been filed jointly by the informants/victims and the accused persons. After settlement through an agreement made between the informants and the accused persons. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is the wife and the petitioner No. 5 is the second wife of one Shri Deepak Tallang, who is the petitioner No. 4, wherein, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 6 are the complainants and the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the victims in the instant petition. The alleged accused persons are the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that a misunderstanding had occurred between the petitioner Nos. 1 and 5, and a minor scuffle took place at the resident of the petitioner No. 5. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 tried to separate the parties and in the process, the petitioner No. 5 fell down and suffered minor injuries. Out of anger the petitioner Nos. 3 and 6 have lodged the FIR against the petitioner No. 1 alleging that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have physically assaulted the petitioner No. 5 without any valid reason. 5. On receipt of the FIR, the case has been registered and the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 120(B)/458/307 of IPC, and thereafter, the trial was pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Bomdila, West Kameng District. Thereafter, it is stated that the case has been transferred to the Session Judge, Seppa and re-numbered as Seppa Sessions Case No. 01/2024, and it is at the stage of prosecution witness evidence. 6. Further, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the said case, a compromise has been entered between the Page No.# 4/7 parties and a deed of agreement has been entered into on 30.09.2024. By the deed of agreement dated 30.09.2024, the parties/petitioners herein being the accused persons, the complainants as well as the victims have agreed to settle the matter amicably and mutually and settled the issues. By the said agreement, the parties have decided to end all hostilities and maintain cordial relationship with each other. It is also been agreed between the parties that the second party has promised to never repeat similar kind of offence against the first party directly or indirectly. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court to the injury report dated 09.05.2024, showing that in the injury report all the injuries are simple in nature expect one which was an injury to the temporal region. Further, the learned counsel submits that the ingredient of Section 307 IPC is not present in the instant case and therefore, she submits that this Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, to quashed the proceedings. The learned counsel has also referred to the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases 688, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the offence under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offence. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention Section 307 of IPC in the FIR or the charge-Sheet. 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. Further, the Apex Court also held that it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Page No.# 5/7 8. The learned counsel has also relied on the case of Jhumarmal Dudharia vs. Maganlal Dhada and Ors., reported in 1976 0 CRLJ 1355, where the Hon’ble High Court has interpreted the term “vital part of the body”. As per the judgement in Jhumarmal Dudharia (supra) the Court held that the injury report has to be examined by the Court and if there was no evidence that the accused has held those parts of the neck which are fatal parts of the neck under such circumstances it cannot be held that the attack was on the vital part of the body. And that mere attack on the neck by itself would not be an attack on a vital organ. 9. The learned counsel relying on the aforementioned judgment submits that in the present case no injury has been inflicted on the vital part of the body of the victims. Therefore, it is submitted that the ingredient of Section 307 IPC is not present in the instant case. The learned counsel therefore, prays that the petition may be allowed and the proceedings of Seppa Sessions Case No. 01/2024 may be quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor has objected to the present petition on the ground that Section 307 IPC is a heinous offence and therefore, this Court may not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. He has also referred to the charge-sheet and has tried to persuade the Court that the injuries sustained are on vital parts of the body and therefore, that the ingredient of Section 307 IPC has been made out. 11. This Court has considered the submission of the parties and has perused the trial Court records and also the judgment relied upon the petitioners. 12. Upon going through the charge-sheet and also the injury report, this Court Page No.# 6/7 is prima facie of the view that the ingredient of Section 307 IPC is not present. Further, the main ingredient of Section 307 IPC is that the act should have been done with an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if that act has caused death the accused would have been guilty of murder. In the present case, this Court does not find that there was any intention or knowledge on the part of the accused persons as the incident occurred due to a sudden scuffle and prima facie there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the accused persons. 13. This Court has also perused the deed of agreement dated 30.09.2024, which has been executed between the accused persons, the complainants and the victims. Through the deed of agreement, the parties have categorically arrived at the decision to end all hostilities and to maintain cordial relationship with each other. 14. In view of the observations made above, this Court is of the view that it would a futile exercise to continue with the trial as the prosecution would not be able to get a conviction when the injured witness refuses to either support the prosecution case or does not appear as a prosecution witnesses. 15. In view of the compromise entered into and the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court is of the view that the prosecution would not be able to get the cooperation of the complainant and the victims in the present case. 16. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings of Seppa Case No. 01/2024 in G.R. Case No. 12/2025, is set aside and quashed. Page No.# 7/7 17. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. 18. The Registry shall send back the trial Court records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant