Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040001312025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./10/2025 Smti Meena Tayem and 3 Ors Wife of Kara Topu, resident of Batt Village, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Kara Topu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Kara Hechi resident of Batt Village Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Smti Yamina Bagang Age: Occupation : Wife of Kara Topu address at Nyorch Village Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Taba Topu, Tajoy Eru,Tem Pahi,Likha Kagung,Tokdak Tamin Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 21-02-2025 Heard Mr. T. Tamin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application jointly filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for compounding the non- compoundable offence charge-sheeted against the accused petitioner No. 2, namely, Shri Kara Topu and petitioner No. 3, Smti Yamina Bagang and for quashing and setting aside the G. R. Case No. 650/2022 arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 96/2022, under Sections 498-A/323/34 IPC, pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Yupia. 3. The petitioner No. 1, namely, Smti Meena Tayem is the first wife of the accused petitioner No. 2 and the informant; The petitioner No. 2 is the accused No. 1 and husband of the petitioner No. 1; and the petitioner No. 3 is the accused No. 2 and second wife of the petitioner No. 2 in the above G. R. Case No. 650/2022. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 08.08.2022, the petitioner No. 1 lodged a written F.I.R. against the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 before the Officer-in-Charge of the Itanagar Women Police Station, inter alia alleging therein, that her husband, the accused petitioner No. 2 has relationship with the accused petitioner No. 3, and due to their such relationship, the petitioner No. 2 physically assaulted her in her kitchen on 29.07.2022. It is also alleged that despite of her opposition, the petitioner No. 2 has continued his relationship with the petitioner No. 3 and they are staying together at Nyorch village, Yuipa. On 06.08.2022, both her husband/the petitioner No. 2 and the second wife, the petitioner No. 3 came to Batt village and on being opposed for selling Page No.# 3/8 their land, she was physically tortured by both the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. 5. Based on the above written F.I.R., the Police have registered the above mentioned Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 96/2022 under Sections 498-A/323/34 IPC and investigated into. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O) of the case has laid Charge-sheet into the case against both the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 for commission of offence under Section 498-A/323 IPC and now the case is pending for trial before the Court of the CJM, Yupia. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners are members of the same family, being husband and wives, they during the pendency of the case, have amicably settled the matter and executed Deed of Mutual Settlement on 19.09.2024. As per the Deed of Mutual Settlement, dated 19.09.2024, the parties have mutually reconciled and settled the misunderstanding amongst them with a view to live a peaceful family life together, as such, the informant, petitioner No. 1 has agreed to withdraw the case pending against the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 before the court of the CJM, Yupia. It is further submitted that since the alleged victim/the informant/petitioner No. 1, have no further grievance against the accused petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, the informant has agreed to cooperate for withdrawal of the case against the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. However, since the offences involved in the case are non- compoundable offences, and the same is beyond the power of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to compound the case, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with a prayer for compounding the case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the matter pertains to a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No. 1, first wife; the petitioner No. 2, the husband and the petitioner No. 3, the second wife and due to some misunderstanding between them, the petitioner No. 1 being the first wife of the petitioner No. 2 has lodged the said F.I.R. However, since the matter has now been Page No.# 4/8 amicably settled amongst the parties and the informant, the petitioner No. 1 and the accused petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are living happily with their children as wives and husband, the informant petitioner No. 1 does not have any further grievance against her accused husband/petitioner No. 2 and the second wife, the accused petitioner No. 3. It is submitted that under the circumstances, the further proceedings of the G. R. Case No. 650/2022, pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of law, hence, prays for quashing and setting aside of the said G. R. Case No. 650/2022. 8. Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the case has arisen out of the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No. 1 and her husband, the petitioner No. 2 and second wife, the petitioner No. 3; Thus, the case is private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society at large, and as the matter has already been compromised and amicably settled amongst the parties, therefore, the petitioners pray for quashing and setting aside of the G. R. Case No. 650/2022. 9. Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that although the case was registered against the accused petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and charge has already been framed against the accused petitioner No. 2 for offence under Section 498-A/323/34 IPC and under Section 323/34 IPC against the accused petitioner No. 3, however, from the record, it appears that the alleged incident had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No. 1, informant/victim and the accused petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, and due to such misunderstanding between the husband and the wives, the petitioner No. 1 being the first wife of the accused petitioner No. 2 had lodged the said F.I.R., leading to filing of the Charge-sheet against the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the alleged incident took place between husband and wives and it was not with any stranger or done due to personal enmity with any intention to cause any Page No.# 5/8 injury to the informant. Moreover, the record shows that the matter has been amicably settled amongst the parties and the alleged victim/informant, the petitioner No. 1 has agreed to cooperate for withdrawal of the case. Furthermore, since, the offences charged against the accused petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 has arisen due the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wives, and the same is not a serious one, he has no objection, if this Court passes an appropriate order in exercise of its inherent power provided under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 10. In support of their submission the learned counsels for the parties have placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in case of the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: “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 Page No.# 6/8 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 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 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.” 11. I have heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. I have also perused the records produced before this Court. 12. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the alleged incidents took place due to the matrimonial dispute between the informant, the petitioner No. 1 and the accused petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 due to the marital discords between them, leading to the filing of the said F.I.R. against the accused petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 being the husband and Page No.# 7/8 wife and the petitioner No. 3 being the second wife of the petitioner No. 2, it appears that the said F.I.R. was lodged due to the matrimonial dispute and a serious misunderstanding between the parties. Furthermore, it is seen that during the pendency of the trial of the case, the parties have amicably settled the matter amongst them. It is also seen that according to the Deed of Mutual Settlement, the petitioner No. 1, the informant being the first wife of the petitioner No. 2 has forgiven her husband petitioner No. 2 and his second wife, the petitioner No. 3 for their delinquency and have agreed to withdraw the F.I.R./complaint as well as the Domestic Violence case lodged against the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. 13. Since the dispute and the alleged incidents are between the husband and wives, the same appears do not affect the society at large. Further, the parties have amicably settled the matter amongst them by executing Deed of Mutual Settlement, whereby, the informant, the petitioner No. 1 have forgiven the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and have expressed that she does not want to pursue the case against the accused petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and also agreed to pursue for compounding of the case. Under the circumstances, it appears that the continuation of the case before the Trial Court would only cause hardship to all the parties who are the member of the same family and in such situation, it would be wastage of precious judicial time and thus, it would only result in futile exercise. 14. 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 Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Further the submission of the parties is being supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Laxmi Narayan (Supra). Additionally, in such circumstances, it is now well settled that even if the offence alleged against the accused are non-compoundable offence, the High Court or the Apex Court in exercise of their inherent power may intercept the pending criminal proceeding. Page No.# 8/8 15. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since, the case having arisen out of a matrimonial dispute have amicably been settled between the parties inter se, this Court is of the opinion that the G. R. Case No. 650/2022 arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 96/2022, under Sections 498-A/323/34 IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Yupia, needs to be set aside and quashed for the interest of justice. 16. Accordingly, the aforementioned G. R. Case No. 650/2022 arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 96/2022, under Sections 498-A/323/34 IPC, against Shri Kara Topu and Smti Yamina Bagang pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Yupia, is hereby set aside and quashed. 17. With the above observation, this criminal petition is allowed and disposed of. 18. Return the Trial Court Record (TCR). JUDGE Comparing Assistant