Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040017902025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./236/2025 Smti Tamey Cheme and 2 Ors Wife of Shri Karsang Tatang, presently residing at Itanagar Hill Top, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Ajit Kanu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nipen Kanu permanent / present residing of Doimukh Village PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Jalam Wangpan @ Jalem Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Alluwa Wangpan permanent and present residing of Pumao Village PO and PS Longding District Longding Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Niabin Soki, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 01.04.2026 Heard Mr. N. Soki, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been jointly filed by the accused and the informant, praying for quashing of GR Case No. 882/2022 arising out of Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 146/2022, registered under Sections 120B/384/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner No. 1, Smti Tamey Cheme, is the informant; petitioner No. 2, Shri Ajit Kanu, and petitioner No. 3, Shri Jalam Wangpan @ Jalem, are the accused in the above-mentioned GR Case No. 882/2022 arising out of Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 146/2022. 4. The case leading to the filing of this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS is that, based on a written First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the informant/petitioner No. 1 on 28.10.2022. Accordingly, the aforesaid police station case was registered against accused petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) submitted the charge-sheet vide C.S. No. 210/2022 dated 20.12.2022 for an offence punishable under Section 384/120-B of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia took cognizance of the case on dated 10.01.2023, and the case is now pending trial before the said learned Trial Court at Yupia. 5. Mr. Soki, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the case is of Page No.# 3/5 the year 2022 and that, during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties, who have executed a Settlement Agreement dated 18.09.2025. He further submits that petitioner No. 1 (informant) has expressed that she is not willing to proceed with the matter any further, as the incident arose due to a share misunderstanding between the parties which now stands resolved. Further, petitioner No. 1 (informant) has no more grievance against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and does not wish to pursue the matter any further. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, since the matter has been amicably settled and there is no likelihood of conviction, the proceedings against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS. 7. Mr. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that, considering that the FIR was lodged due to a misunderstanding between the parties involving an amount of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only), and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and that the petitioner No. 1 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 have perused the record. 9. The informant lodged the FIR against accused/petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 due to a misunderstanding between them. However, during the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably resolved and settled the matter. Petitioner No. 1 (informant) now has no further grievance against the accused/petitioner Nos. 2 Page No.# 4/5 and 3 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 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. 882/2022, arising out of Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 146/2022, and the charge-sheet, vide C.S. No. 210/2022 dated 20.12.2022, registered under Section 384 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, against the accused, Shri Ajit Kanu (petitioner No. 2) and Shri Jalam Wangpan @ Jalem (petitioner No. 3), are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. Page No.# 5/5 13. With the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant