Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040020322025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./272/2025 Smti Nguyum Taipodia Basar and 3 Ors Wife of Shri Bomli Basar, serving s Senior Nursing Officer, District Hospital, Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Bomli Basar Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tobom Basar permanent resident of Gori-III Village PO and PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Ms Gobom Doji Age: Occupation : Son of Emar Doji permanent resident of Doji Jeko Village PO Bagra PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Ms Genu Bomjen Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Gintum Bomjen permanent resident of Doji Jeko Village PO Bagra PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Page No.# 2/6 The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Idak Bam, Mindo Taso Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 23.03.2026 Heard Mr. I. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, BNS has been filed jointly by the informant/petitioner No. 1 and the accused/petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 seeking quashing and setting aside of G.R. Case No. 43/2025, arising out of Likabali P.S. Case No. 5/2025, and the Charge Sheet vide C.S. No. 5/2025, registered under Sections 85/82(1)/56 of BNS dated 23.04.2025, which is pending before Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. 3. Petitioner No. 1, Smti Nguyum Taipodia Basar, is the informant; petitioner No. 2, Shri Bomli Basar, is the accused/husband of petitioner No. 1; and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, Ms. Gobom Doji and Ms. Genu Bomjen, are accused in the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 43/2025 arising out of Likabali P.S. Case No. 5/2025. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that: on 24.05.2024, petitioner No. 1 lodged a written First Information Report (FIR) Page No.# 3/6 against her husband, petitioner No. 2, alleging offences amounting to cruelty and bigamy. Based on the FIR, the aforesaid Likabali P.S. Case No. 5/2025 was registered against petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 under Sections 85/82(1) of BNS. Upon completion of investigation, the Charge Sheet was filed vide C.S. No. 5/2025 dated 23.04.2025 against petitioner No. 2 for offences under Sections 85/82(1) of BNS and against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 for offences punishable under Section 56 of BNS. The case is pending trial before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. 5. Mr. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the case arose due to marital discord between petitioner No. 1 (informant) and petitioner No. 2 (accused), arising from allegations of cruelty and bigamy. He further submits that during the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably settled the matter outside the Court by executing a Deed of Settlement dated 22.08.2025 between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2, and a Deed of Settlement dated 07.12.2025 between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. 6. He further submitted that earlier the petitioner No. 3 had lodged a written FIR against petitioner No. 1 (present informant), which was registered as Basar P.S. Case No. 15/2024 under Section 66(E) of the IT Act, 2000, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 19/2024. However, the said case has been amicably settled between the parties along with the present settlement, and this Court’s by order dated 19.03.2026 passed in Crl. Petn./63(AP)/2026, the G.R. Case No. 19/2024 arising out of Basar P.S. Case No. 15/2024 was quashed. 7. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 1 (informant) has expressed her unwillingness to proceed with the matter any further, as the dispute arose due to the extra-marital relation of her husband/petitioner No. 2, which has since Page No.# 4/6 been resolved. The informant now has resolved her disputes with petitioner No. 2 and the other accused persons, and they are leading a harmonious married life. 8. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 has no further grievance against petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 and does not wish to pursue the matter further. She has expressed her willingness to cooperate in the quashing of the FIR. 9. Ms. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that in view of the amicable settlement and considering that the FIR was lodged due to marital discord between the petitioner No.1 (informant) and the petitioner No.2 (accused/husband of the petitioner No.1), with the disputes now resolved, she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 11. The present case arose out of marital discord between the informant and her husband/petitioner No. 2, arising from allegations of domestic violence due to extra-marital affairs. During the pendency of the trial, the matter has been amicably settled by executing the deed of settlement dated 22.08.2025 (between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2) and 07.12.2025 (between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4). Petitioner No. 1 now has no grievance against the accused/petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 and does not wish to pursue the case further. The dispute appears to be personal in nature and does not affect society at large. Given the facts and circumstances, there is only a remote possibility of conviction. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Page No.# 5/6 the continuation of the criminal proceedings would therefore be a futile exercise and amount to an abuse of the process of law. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 43/2025, arising out of Likabali P.S. Case No. 5/2025, and the Charge Sheet, vide C.S. No. 5/2025, registered under Sections 85/82(1)/56 of BNS dated 23.04.2025, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, against the accused, Shri Bomli Basar (petitioner No. 2), Ms. Gobom Doji (petitioner No. 3) and Ms. Genu Bomjen (petitioner No. 3), are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. Page No.# 6/6 15. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant