Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040003132025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./36/2025 Smti Yanga Mara and Anr Wife of Shri Subash Nidak, permanent resident of Village Maying, PO and PS Taliha, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Forest Cooperation Colony, Chimpu, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Subash Nidak Age: Occupation : Son of Late Niara Nidak a permanent resident of Abo Tani colony Daporijo PO and PS Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Forest Cooperation Colony Chimpu Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Pekyum Tamin, Gedo Kato Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 03.03.2025 Heard Mr. T. Tamin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for setting aside and quashing of the FIR No. 0055/2024 dated 15.10.2024 registered vide Itanagar Women Police Station No. 55/2024 corresponding to GR Case No. 1064/24, under Section 85 of BNS, 2023. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Tamin, learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a joint application filed by the informant/petitioner No. 1 and the accused/petitioner No. 2 for quashing of the FIR which has been registered as Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 55/2024. It is submitted that due to some misunderstanding, the petitioner No. 1, being the informant in this case, has lodged the FIR against the petitioner No. 2, who is the husband of petitioner No. 1, due to some matrimonial dispute between them. However, at present, both the parties have amicably settled the matter and they are now happily residing as husband and wife with their minor child and to that effect, both the parties have also entered into family settlement agreement dated 18.11.2024 with some terms and conditions in presence of some witnesses. Accordingly, he submitted that since the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties, there is no probability of deposing against the Page No.# 3/6 present petitioner No. 2 even if the case is allowed to be proceeded or even if the charge-sheet is filed, rather it will be an abuse of the process of Court. Thus, he submitted that it is a fit case wherein, the FIR can be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of BNSS. 4. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submitted that since both the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and the entire dispute arose only due to misunderstanding out of matrimonial dispute and they are no longer willing to proceed with the case, the State has no objection in the event of allowing this petition. 5. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the petition as well as the annexures filed along with the petition. 6. It is seen that admittedly both the petitioners are husband and wife and the F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner No. 2. However, in the meantime, they have resolved their dispute amicably by executing a deed of family settlement in presence of their family members and they are now living peacefully together with their child without any differences. 7. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held, which is reproduced here-in-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 Page No.# 4/6 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 Page No.# 5/6 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.” 8. Here in the instant case, since both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, it is unlikely that the petitioner No. 1 will depose against the petitioner No. 2 even if the proceeding is allowed to be continued. Rather, it will be an abuse of the process of Court. More so, the dispute being predominantly private in nature, particularly arisen out of matrimonial dispute, the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak. 9. In the light of the discussions made above and also considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case law referred to hereinabove and further considering the fact that the petitioners have amicably settled their dispute and are living together peacefully as husband and wife, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be meted out if the petition is allowed. Further, since the matter has already been settled between the petitioners, it is unlikely that the petitioner No. 1 will depose against the petitioner No. 2, and in that event allowing the proceeding to continue before the learned Trial Court would be an abuse of the process of law. 10. In view of above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, can be invoked to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The FIR dated 15.10.2024, being Itanagar Women Police Station No. 55/2024 corresponding to GR Case No. 1064/24, under Section 85 of BNS, 2023, stands Page No.# 6/6 quashed. 11. Criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant