Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040002252025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./28/2025 Kago Nyipa and Anr Son of Late Kago Nana, Village Hija, PO and PS Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Duyu Nyimung Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Duyu Haniya Village Old Ziro Area PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Kago Taja, Nabam Talin Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE JUDGEMENT & ORDER (Oral) Date : 24.04.2025 Heard Mr. K. Taja, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application jointly filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying for quashment of the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No. 32/2024 under Section 454/380 of IPC, 1860, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ziro, on the basis of the settlement entered between the petitioners. 3. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 16.05.2024 at 1700 hrs, a written complaint was received from one Smti. Duyu Nyimung (petitioner No. 2) aged about 65 years of Reru-II Village of Ziro in the District of Lower Subansiri District to the effect that on 16.05.2024 at around 10:30 AM to 3:00 PM during her absence an unknown person has intruded into her house by breaking backside door and had stolen cash amount of more than 1(One) Lakh. Upon receipt of the said FIR, the police has registered a case being Ziro P.S. Case No. 13/2024 under Sections 454/380 of IPC. 4. On completion of the investigation, the police has laid the charge-sheet on 26.07.2024 against the petitioner No. 1 under Sections 454/380 of IPC, which is pending trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ziro being G.R. Case Page No.# 3/6 No. 32/2024. 5. Mr. K. Taja, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant and the accused, petitioners herein have settled the matter amicably between them as the act was committed without any criminal intention but due to innocence and hardships in life of the petitioner No. 1. The stolen amount has been refunded in full to the petitioner No. 2. He submits that the petitioners being relatives are well known to each other and as such the matter has been amicably settled and the parties do not wish to continue with the case considering the long standing old-age relation between them. Therefore, Mr. Taja, learned counsel submits that the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No. 32/2024 may be quashed in view of the settlement between the petitioners consequent to which the chances of conviction are remote. 6. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that since the petitioners have entered into settlement being the relatives and also that the petitioner No. 1 has refunded the stolen amount, he would not have any serious objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No. 32/2024. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 8. Normally the offence which are not compoundable cannot be compounded by this Court as the appropriate Court has the power of compounding offences under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. However, in the given case, this Court can quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Page No.# 4/6 Cr.P.C (corresponding to 528 of BNSS, 2023) having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection if the offences are non-compoundable. 9. In the present case, the petitioners have entered into settlement on 02.11.2024, wherein the petitioner No. 1 has apologized and promise to remain as an honest person and shall not commit any theft or other offences in future which has been accepted by the petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 has refunded some amount of stolen cash to the petitioner No. 2. The parties have settled the matter being the relatives and to maintain cordial relation between them. 10. The record reveals that the petitioner No. 1 appears to have admitted his involvement and commission of the offence alleged as he had revealed that he was affected by drug withdrawal syndrome, since he had no money with himself so he has committed theft in the unknown house located at near old market Ziro. He has stolen cash amount of Rs. 57,000/- (Rupees Fifty-seven thousand) only from the house of the petitioner No. 2. Thereafter, he had purchased drugs and certain items which was recovered and seized. The petitioner No. 1 appears to be aged about 31 years. The parties are related to each other and being relatives, they have entered into settlement on 02.11.2024. 11. The quashment of criminal proceedings of non-compoundable offence on the basis of compromise under Section 482 of Cr.P.C (corresponding to 528 of BNSS, 2023) has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After consideration of its earlier decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Page No.# 5/6 the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Lakshmi Narayan and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 which is reproduced herein 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 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 Page No.# 6/6 managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.“ 11. On consideration of the materials available on record in the present case, this Court finds that the petitioners are related and known to each other and the petitioner No. 1 being a young man appears to have been not committed the alleged offence with any criminal intention rather due to his withdrawal syndrome of drugs. The parties have decided to maintain cordial relation between them being a relatives. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case, wherein the inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 can be invoked for quashing of the criminal proceedings being G.R. Case No. 32/2024 as the chances of conviction are remote and bleak and the continuation of proceedings would be abuse of process of law. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the fact that the petitioners are relatives who have entered into settlement agreement and also in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the present petition is liable to be allowed by quashing the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 32/2024 under Section 454/380 of IPC against the petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside and quashed. 13. Criminal petition is allowed and stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant