Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040003182025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./38/2025 Miss Likha Ampa and Anr Daughter of Shri Likha Tacho, permanent resident of Village Delipaji, PO and PS Yazali, Keyi Panyor (Erstwhile Lower Subansiri) District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Marbi Basar Angu Age: Occupation : Wife of Marli Angu presently residing at NEEPCO Colony Doimukh PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare 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, :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 17.06.2025 Heard Mr. N. Talin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard MR. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/5 2. The petitioners have filed this joint petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No.112/2023, arising out of Doimukh P.S. Case No.14/2023, registered under Sections 353/325 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 3. The petitioner No.1, Miss Likha Ampa is the accused, while the petitioner No.2 Smti Marbi Basar Angu, is the informant in the aforesaid G.R. Case No.112/2023. 4. The case arose out of a complaint lodged by the informant petitioner No.2 alleging that on 13.02.2025 while she was discharging her official duty of inspection of construction work, the accused petitioner No.1 assaulted her, causing injury to her left ear resulting damaged to her eardrum, for which she underwent treatment. Based on the above FIR, a case was registered and investigated into. On 25.02.2023, the accused also filed a counter-complaint against the informant alleging assault on her by the petitioner No.2. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused petitioner No.1 under Sections 353/325 IPC. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of trial, with the intervention of the elders and the officers of both sides, the dispute has been amicably resolved by the parties. It is submitted that a deed of settlement has been executed on 22.05.2023, wherein, it is stated that the complaint arose out of misunderstanding leading to scuffle between the parties where the petitioner No.2 sustained minor injury. Base on same incident, the Page No.# 3/5 accused petitioner No.2 also lodged counter complaint against the informant petitioner No.2. The informant pardoned the accused and expressed that she has no further grievance against the accused. The parties do not wish to pursue their respective complaints. He further submits that since the matter has amicably been resolved and the informant does not want to pursue with the matter, therefore, the aforesaid G.R. Case No.112/2025 may be quashed to maintain peace and harmony and in the interest of justice. 7. Mr. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor submits that although one of the offences charged sheeted against the accused is non-compoundable, the record indicates that the incident arose out of some misunderstanding and scuffled between the parties and subsequently, with the involvement of the elders and the officers of both the parties the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. Under such circumstances, the likelihood of conviction of the accused persons is minimal. Considering the amicable settlement, he has no objection to quashing of the proceedings to promote peaceful coexistence between the parties. 8. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings involving offences of personal nature where the parties have amicably resolved the dispute to secure the ends of justice, even if the offences are not compoundable. 9. In Narinder Sigh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 466, Page No.# 4/5 the Supreme Court observed that where parties have settled and continuance of proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the Court may quash such proceedings even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, provided they are predominantly of personal nature. 10. In Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653, it was held that where the offence does not affect public peace at large, and is private in nature, the High Court can quash proceedings even in cases under Section 353 IPC, where the victim has no objection. 11. In the present case, the dispute arose out of a personal misunderstanding leading to the scuffle between the informant and the accused. The informant lodged complaint against the accused and the accused also lodged counter complaint against the informant. Subsequently, the accused and the informant have resolved the matter amicably and the informant does not want to pursue the case. The Public Prosecutor has no objection. Under such circumstance, it appears that no useful purpose would be served continuing the proceedings and the continuation of the trial of the case in the Court would only cause hardship to both the parties. 12. Considering the materials on record and the principle of law relating to quashing of an FIR laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, I am of the considered view that the present case is the one of the cases where the inherent power of this Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 can be invoked to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is Page No.# 5/5 allowed. 13. The criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No.112/2023, arising out of Doimukh P.S. Case No.14/2023, registered under Sections 353/325 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, against the accused petitioner No.1 Ms. Likha Ampa, is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. With the above observations, this criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. 15. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. 16. The parties are directed to maintain peace and harmony. 17. Return the Trial Court Record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant