Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040000842025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./7/2025 Gama Dulom and Anr Son of Shri Lomga (Taga) Dulom, resident of Ligu village, PO Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh 2: Smti Gania Mugli Dulom Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Gama Dulom resident of Ligu Village PO Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Subu Koyang, Debo Mangkhya,Karli Ete,Ugin Puri,Radhe Yakang,Kago Taja Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 13-05-2025 Heard Mr. K. Taja, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl.P.P. for the State. 2. This is a joint petition filed under section 528 BNSS,2023 praying for compounding of case and quashing the proceedings of GR Case No.01/2024 arising out of Raga PS Case No.01/2024 under section 326/498(A) IPC, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ziro. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner no.1 is the accused/ husband and the petitioner no.2 is his wife. On 06.01.2024, the brother of the petitioner no.2 lodged a written FIR against the petitioner No.1 inter alia alleging therein that the petitioner No.1 has brutally assaulted his sister/petitioner No.2 with lethal weapons, and kept her confined secretly for more than 24 hours without informing anyone due to which the petitioner No.2 received grievous injuries all over her body. 4. Based on the above written FIR, a case was registered being Raga PS Case No.01/2024 under section 326/498(A) IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the I.O of the case has submitted charge-sheet into the case against the accused petitioner No.1 for commission of offence under section 326/498(A)IPC and now the case is pending for consideration of the Page No.# 3/8 charge before the Court of CJM, Ziro. 5. Mr. K. Taja, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner no.1 and 2 are husband and wife, in the meantime, during the pendency of the case they have amicably settled the matter and executed a deed of agreement dated 16.1.2025. As per the deed of agreement dated 16.1.2025, the parties have mutually reconciled and settled the mis understanding between them with a view to live a peaceful married life. As such, the victim wife has agreed to withdraw the case pending against the petitioner No.1, husband before the Court of the learned CJM, Ziro. It is further submitted that since the victim, petitioner no.2 has no further grievance against the accused petitioner no.1, she has agreed to co-operate for withdrawal of the case against the petitioner no.1. However, since the offence registered against the petitioner no.1 are non- compoundable offences and the same is beyond the power of the learned Court of CJM, Ziro, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition under section 528 of the BNSS with a prayer for compounding of the non-compoundable offences. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the matter pertains to matrimonial dispute between the husband petitioner no.1 and the wife petitioner no.2 and due to some misunderstanding between them, the brother of the petitioner no.2 lodged a written FIR against the petitioner no.1 alleging physical assault. However, since the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties and accused petitioner no.1 and the wife petitioner no.2 are living happily as husband and wife, and since the Page No.# 4/8 wife/petitioner no.2 does not have any further grievance against the accused petitioner No.1, the further proceedings of GR case No. 01/2024 under section 326/498(A) IPC pending before the Court of CJM, Ziro would be a futile exercise and abuse of the process of law hence, prays for quashing and setting aside the said GR No.01/2024. 7. furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the case has arisen out of matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife hence, the case is private in nature and do not have any serious impact on society at large. Additionally, the learned petitioner’s counsel submits that as the matter has already been settled between the parties, therefore, the petitioners are praying for quashing and setting aside of the above GR Case No.01/2024. 8. Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor fairly submits that although the case was registered against the petitioner no.1 under section 326/498(A) IPC, however, from the record it appears that the said incident had arisen out of matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, and due to some misunderstanding between them-the brother of the victim wife/petitioner no.2 lodged the said FIR leading to filing of the charge-sheet against the accused/petitioner no.1. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that the incident took place between the known persons i.e. the husband and the wife, and it was not with any stranger or done due to any personal enmity with any intention to cause injury to the wife petitioner no.2. Furthermore, the record also shows that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties where the victim and the informant had agreed to co-operate for withdrawal of Page No.# 5/8 the case. Besides, the offence registered against the accused petitioner no.1 has arisen out of matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, and although the allegation made in the FIR was serious but the injury caused to the victim was not that serious one as per the record, therefore, she has no objection if this Court passed an appropriate order in exercise of its inherent power provided under section 528 BNSS. 9. In support of their submissions, the learned counsel for the parties has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. The relevant paragraph 15 is reproduced here 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 Page No.# 6/8 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; 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.” 10. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the record produced before this Court. 11. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the incident took place due to matrimonial dispute between the accused/petitioner no.1 and the victim /petitioner no.2. It also appears that the brother of the petitioner no.2 lodged the above written FIR due to a matrimonial dispute and serious misunderstanding between the petitioners No.1 & 2. However, in the meantime, the parties seems have amicably settled the matter between themselves. It is further seen that as per the Page No.# 7/8 settlement agreement, the petitioner no.2 being the wife of the petitioner no.1 with the support of her informant/brother have forgiven the accused petitioner no.1 for his misdeeds if any, and have agreed to withdraw the FIR lodged against the petitioner no.1. 12. Since, the dispute and the incident are between the husband and wife, the same do not appears to have effect the society at large. Further, as the parties have amicably settled the matter between them and the victim have expressed that she do not want to pursue the case against the accused petitioner no.1. Under such circumstance, it appears that continuation of the trial of the case in the Court would only cause hardship to both the parties and their family and in such situation, it would be a wastage of precious judicial time thus, it would only result in futile exercise. 13. In view of the above, I find sufficient force and logic in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners which has received full support of the learned Addl. P.P for the State respondents. Further, the submissions of the parties are being supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan (supra). In such circumstances, it is now well settled that even if the offence alleged against the accused is non compoundable offence, the High Court or the Apex Court in exercise of inherent powers may intersect the pending proceedings. 14. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since the case having arisen out of matrimonial dispute has amicably been settled between the parties inter se, this Court is of the Page No.# 8/8 considered opinion that the GR Case No.01/2024, (State of A.P vs Gama Dulom) arising out of Raga PS Case No.01/2024 under section 326/498(A) IPC pending before the learned Court of CJM, Ziro needs to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 15. Accordingly, the GR Case No.01/2024 arising out of Raga PS Case No.01/2024 under section 326/498(A) IPC pending before the learned Court of CJM, Ziro against the accused petitioner No.1 Shri Gama Dulom is hereby quashed and set aside. 16. With the above observation, this criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. 17. Return the Trial Court Record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant