Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040004762025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./65/2025 Smti Mini Bui Gyati and Anr Wife of Shri Gyati Kago, present resident of Bank Tinali, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Gyati Kago Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Gyati Tamo presently residing at Bank Tinali Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Gyati Tadi, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 20-05-2025 Heard Mr. G. Tadi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/7 2. This is a joint petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, for compounding the non-compoundable offences and for quashing and setting aside of the G. R. Case No. 649/2023 arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 79/2023 under Sections 498A/509/323 IPC pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 3. The petitioner No. 1, informant is the wife and the petitioner No. 2, accused is the husband of petitioner No. 1 in the above G. R. Case No. 649/2023. 4. The fact of the case in brief is that on 12.08.2023, the petitioner No.1 lodged a written FIR against the petitioner No. 2 before the Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station Itanagar, inter alia alleging, therein, that the petitioner No. 2 has caused physical assault, mental torture, domestic violence, outraging modesty and criminal intimidation against her. Based on the above written FIR, the Police has registered the aforesaid Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 79/2023. The case was investigated and on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid Charge-sheet into the case against the petitioner No. 2 for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A/509/323 IPC and now the case is pending trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 5. Mr. G. Tadi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are members of the same family being husband and wife and during the pendency of the case, they have amicably settled the matter and exhibited a Deed of Agreement on 08.03.2025. As per this Deed of Agreement, the parties have mutually reconciled and settled the misunderstanding between them with the intervention of the family and elders of both the parties with a view to live a peaceful family life. As a result, the informant has agreed to withdraw the case pending against the petitioner No. 2 before the Court of the Judicial magistrate Page No.# 3/7 First Class, Yupia. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the informant/victim has no further grievance against the accused petitioner No. 2, and she has agreed to cooperate for withdrawal of the case pending against the petitioner No. 2. However, since one of the offence Charge-sheeted against the accused is non-compoundable offence, especially Section 498A IPC and the same is beyond the power of the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class to compound the case, the petitioners have filed the present petition jointly under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, with a prayer for compounding the case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the matter pertains to a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, and due to some misunderstanding between them, the petitioner No. 1 lodged the written FIR before the Police against the petitioner No. 2. However, since the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties and the informant, petitioner No. 1 and the accused, petitioner No. 2 are living happily with their 2 (two) minor children, the informant, petitioner No. 1 does not have any further grievance against the accused, petitioner No. 2, under the circumstances, the further proceeding of the G.R. Case No. 649/2023, pending before the Trial Court would be a futile exercise and it would amount to the abuse of the process of law. Hence, prays for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid G. R. Case No. 649/2023. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners furthermore submits that since the case has arisen out of the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No. 1, wife and the petitioner No. 2, husband; hence, the case is private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society at large. Furthermore, as the matter has already been compromised and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, the petitioners pray for quashing and setting aside the above G. R. Case No.649/2023. Page No.# 4/7 8. Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that although the case was registered against the accused petitioner No. 2, under Section 498A/509/323 IPC, however, from the record it appears that the said incident had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties (wife and husband). She further submits that the record reveals that due to some misunderstanding between them, the informant wife lodged written FIR against the accused petitioner No. 2, leading to filing of the Charge-sheet against the accused petitioner No. 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the incident took place between known persons i.e. the wife and husband and it was not with any stranger or done due to any personal enmity with an intention to cause any injury to the informant, wife. Moreover, the record shows that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties and the victim informant has agreed to cooperate for withdrawal of the case. Furthermore, since the matter has already been settled amicably between the parties and the offence registered against the accused petitioner No. 2 had arisen due to the matrimonial dispute between the wife and husband, the same is not a serious one, she has no objection if this Court pass an appropriate order in exercise of its inherent power provided under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 9. In support of their submissions, the learned counsels for the parties have placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688; the relevant paragraph No. 15 is reproduced 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 Page No.# 5/7 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 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 Page No.# 6/7 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 counsels for the parties. I have also perused the record produced before this Court. 11. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the incident took place due to the matrimonial dispute between the informant, petitioner No. 1 and the accused, petitioner No. 2, due to which, the informant, petitioner No. 1 lodged a written FIR against the accused, petitioner No. 2, leading to the filing of the Charge-sheet against the accused petitioner No. 2. However, it is seen that during the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably settled the matter between them. It is further seen that as per the settlement agreement, the petitioner No. 1 have agreed to withdraw the case against the accused husband, petitioner No. 2. 12. Since, the dispute and the incident are between the husband and wife, the same will not adversely affect the society at large. Furthermore, the parties have amicably settled the matter between them by executing a Deed of Settlement, whereby, the informant, petitioner No. 1 has agreed and expressed that she does not want to pursue the case against the accused, petitioner No. 2. Besides the informant, petitioner No. 1, have agreed to cooperate for compounding of the case, under the circumstance, it appears that the continuation of the case before the Trial Court would only cause hardship to both the parties, who are members of the same family being wife and husband, in such situation it would be a wastage of precious judicial time and thus, it would only result in futile exercise. Page No.# 7/7 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 Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. In addition, the submission of the learned counsels for the parties are being supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxminarayan and Ors (Supra). In such, circumstance, it is now well settled that even if the offence alleged against the accused is non-compoundable offence, the Apex Court in exercise of their inherent power may intercept the pending criminal proceedings. 14. In light of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as the case having arisen out of matrimonial dispute, have amicably been settled between the parties inter se, this Court is of the opinion that the G. R. Case No. 649/2023, (State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Gyati Kago) arising out of Itanagar WPS Case No. 79/2023, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, need to be quashed and set aside for the interest of justice. 15. Accordingly, the G. R. Case No. 649/2023 arising out of Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 79/2023, under Sections 498A/509/323 IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, against the accused, petitioner No. 2, namely, Gyati Kago, is hereby set aside and quashed. 16. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition stands allowed and disposed of. 17. Return the Trial Court Record (TCR). JUDGE Comparing Assistant