Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040018372025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./250/2025 Jomo Nirmal and Anr Son of Shri Jomo Bogamol, resident of Village Lenka, PO Balijan, PS Balijan, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Tok Yana Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Jomo Nirmal resident of Village Lenka PO Balijan PS Balijan Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Vijay Duku Raji, Tato Maying,Bomnya Kamdak,Mardo Game Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 04.02.2026 Heard Mr. V. D. Raji, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This joint application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners seeking the quashing and setting aside of the proceedings in GR Case No. 184/2017 arising out of ITA WPS Case No. 30/2017, registered under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 3. The petitioner No.1/accused is the husband, and the petitioner No.2/informant is the wife in the above case. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 05.04.2017, the petitioner No.2, lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioner No.1 for physically and mentally harassing her. The FIR was registered being Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 30/2017, under Sections 498A/323 of IPC, against petitioner No.1 and investigated. Upon completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet No. 57/2017 dated 23.06.2017 under Sections 498A/323 of IPC was submitted. The learned Trial Court has taken cognizance and also framed charges against petitioner No.1 and now pending trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 5. By filing this petition, the petitioners pray for the setting aside and quashing of GR Case No. 184/2017, arising out of ITA WPS Case No. 30/2017, Page No.# 3/5 registered under Sections 498A/323 of the IPC, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yupia. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the investigation, petitioner No.1/accused and petitioner No.2/informant, being husband and wife, amicably resolved and settled the matter by entering into a mutual settlement on 03.11.2025. 7. Petitioner No.2/informant further affirmed that she no longer has any grievances against petitioner No.1 and does not wish to pursue the matter further. 8. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that the dispute is purely private in nature and has been amicably settled between the parties. Since there is no likelihood of conviction in the case, he has no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides. 10. It is evident that the dispute is between husband and wife and that both parties have resolved their differences through a mutual settlement. Also, the petitioner No. 2/informant in her affidavit has categorically stated that she does not wish to proceed further with the case. 11. Since the matter arises out of a private dispute and does not have any significant impact on society at large, continuing with the criminal trial before the learned Trial Court would be an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of law. 12. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that in cases involving matrimonial disputes and other family Page No.# 4/5 matters, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS), can quash criminal proceedings if the matter has been amicably settled and such quashing would serve the ends of justice. 13. In this regard, the notable judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court include: i. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in cases that are overwhelmingly or predominantly civil in nature, particularly matrimonial disputes, when the parties have resolved their dispute amicably. ii. Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it was held that in cases essentially of a private nature, where the possibility of conviction is remote, proceedings may be quashed to promote harmony. iii. B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, wherein the Court observed that in matrimonial disputes, if the parties have settled their differences, there is no justification in continuing the criminal proceedings. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is satisfied that allowing the proceedings to continue would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Page No.# 5/5 15. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings arising out of the complaint dated 05.04.2017, namely GR Case No. 184/2017 arising out of ITA WPS Case No. 30/2017, registered under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code, Charge- sheet No. 57/2017 dated 23.06.2017, and all other proceedings arising therefrom, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yupia are hereby quashed. 16. In terms of the above, this criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant