Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040006432025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./83/2025 Bamang Tamin and Anr Son of Shri Bamang Tadu, resident of Sanglo Putung II, 6 kilo, Papunallah, Naharlagun, PO Naharlagun, PS Papu Nallah, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Miss Sorang Yadap Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Sorang Tamar a permanent resident of Pip Sorang Village PO and PS Tali Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Papu Nallah Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP through the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Gegum Lollen, Joram Sanjay,Thomas Jamoh,Geken Ingo,Bamang Takar Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 02-07-2025 Heard Mr. G. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is a petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, for quashing of the Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 5 of 2020, dated 16.01.2020, registered under Sections 354/323/506 IPC as well as for quashing of the Charge Sheet No. 09/2020, dated 01.11.2020 and the proceeding instituted, thereafter, before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, as GR Case No. 34 of 2020. 3. This petition is filed jointly by both the accused person and the victim, namely Shri Bamang Tamin (the petitioner No. 1) and Ms. Sorang Yadap (the petitioner No. 2). 4. The fact of the case is that at 8 p.m., the accused person, along with another person, came to the shop of the victim asking for beer and when she offered the same, the petitioner No. 1 sexually assaulted her by touching her private parts and when she retaliated, the petitioner No. 1 slapped her thrice and threatened her. The victim also stated that she begged him to leave the place, but the petitioner No. 1 continued to attack her. But in the meantime, people gathered, and the petitioner No. 1, along with the other person, fled away by riding their bike. She also stated that she got physically injured in the said incident. 5. The Police on receipt of the FIR, registered the case under Section 354 and 323 of the IPC. Thereafter, the Police on completion of the investigation, submitted the Charge-sheet on 01.11.2020 and placed the same before the Court. Thereafter, on completion of other procedures, the learned Trial Court, proceeded with the trial. Page No.# 3/5 6. The victim was examined as PW-1 and her deposition was recorded on 22.04.2025 by the Trial Court. In the said deposition, the victim stated that the petitioner No. 1 came to her shop, asking for some alcohol, but since she was attending to some other customer, she did not attend to him and that led to an argument between her and the petitioner No. 1 and that they had beaten up each other. She deposed that she was not sexually assaulted, neither her private part was touched by the petitioner No. 1. She further stated that the FIR was drafted by her brother and that she does not know the contents of the said FIR. In her cross- examinations, she stated that it was her who had first beaten up the petitioner No. 1. 7. Mr. Lollen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits before this Court that the petitioner No. 1, the accused and the petitioner No. 2, the victim, have entered into an agreement on 26th of May 2023, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 in the petition. He placed the Deed of Compromise, wherein, it was stated that a local meeting was convened on 26th May, 2023, wherein, both the parties were present and the matter was discussed and it was found out that there was a misunderstanding and provocation between the petitioner No. 1 and the victim. It was further stated that both the parties have sorted out the issues amicably and that both of them agreed that they would bury the misunderstanding and would maintain cordial relationships amongst each other. The victim further agreed that she will not pursue cases against the petitioner No. 1. The said Deed of Compromise was signed by both parties and was accepted by them. As such, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prays that the proceeding instituted against the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, may be quashed. 8. Ms. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State fairly submits that the dispute is personal in nature and that both the parties have entered into an agreement, as could be noticed from the Deed of Compromise. She also submits that the statement of the victim before the Trial Court had exonerated the petitioner No. 1 Page No.# 4/5 and that there are very less chances that the case would result in conviction. 9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also gone through the materials available on record. 10. It is noticed from the records of the case that although the victim had lodged the FIR against the petitioner No. 1, alleging sexual assault as well as offence under Section 323 IPC and also, she had stated before the Police about the assault; however, in her statement before the Trial Court, she has not stated any of those. Rather, she stated that both she and the petitioner No. 1 assaulted each other, and that the FIR was lodged by her brother and she does not know the contents of the same. It is also noticed that she was not made a hostile witness by the Trial Court, since there was no prayer from the prosecution to array her, as such. 11. Further, the Deed of Compromise entered into by both the parties, shows that they have entered into a settlement and that the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding amongst them. Further, the Medical Report, annexed by petitioners in the petition, shows that there was some simple injury on the body of the victim, when she was examined on 16.01.2020, the day when the FIR was lodged. 12. It is a settled proposition of law that when the parties reach a settlement with regard to personal issues, commercial transactions or matrimonial issues, the cases can be quashed on such settlement. However, the Apex Court had held on a number of occasions that in cases of serious nature, such as murder, rape etc., cases cannot be quashed on settlement. It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that criminal proceedings may be quashed if possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of criminal proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice. 13. In view of the statement given by the victim before the Trial Court, the conviction seems to be remote, inasmuch as, in the cases of the present nature, the deposition of the victim can be the sole consideration and if the victim denies the offence, the same has a very less chance to result in conviction. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Page No.# 5/5 Court had said that the consideration of settlement during investigation after Charge- sheet and during trial should be different, but in the instant case, in view of the statement of the victim and the Deed of Compromise, this Court quashes the Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 5 of 2020, dated 16.01.2020, registered under Sections 354/323/506 IPC and the Charge Sheet No. 09/2020, dated 01.11.2020 as well as the proceeding instituted before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, as GR Case No. 34 of 2020. 14. Accordingly, the instant criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant