Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040007702024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./88/2024 1. Mrs Onam Komut and Anr Wife of Mr George Tatin, permanent resident of Sika Tode village, PO and PS Sille Oyan, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Jullang Village near Central jail, PO RK Mission, PS Chimpu, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh 2: George Tatin Age: Occupation : Son of Mr. Tapok Tatin permanent resident of Pareng Village PO and PS Boleng Siang District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Jullang Village near Central jail PO RK Mission PS Chimpu Papumpare District Arunachal Prades VERSUS The State of Arunachal Pradesh represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Vijay Jamoh, S Tsering,Bakar Dulom,B Padung Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Page No.# 2/5 ORDER Date : 25-04-2025 Heard Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This application is filed jointly by the petitioners under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023), praying for quashment of the criminal proceedings in PSC Sessions Case No.08/2024 (corresponding to PSG WPS Case No.25/2023), under Section 307 of the IPC, 1860, pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pasighat, on the basis of settlement between the parties. 3. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 22.09.2023, at around 08:30 hrs., a written complaint was received from one Smti. Onam Komut (petitioner No.1) of Sika Tode village in East Siang District to the effect that her husband Shri George Tatin (petitioner No.2) had attempted to murder her by wrapping her neck with an electrical wire. Upon receipt of the said FIR, the police has registered a case being PSG WPS Case No.25/2023, under Section 307/498A of the IPC, 1860. 4. On completion of the investigation, the police has laid the charge-sheet on 17.11.2023, against the petitioner No.2 under Section 307 of IPC, 1860. 5. Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding between the petitioners. Having settled the misunderstanding, they have entered into a deed of mutual agreement on 18.06.2024, to maintain the relationship as husband and wife peacefully. He submits that since the petitioners are husband and wife and are living peacefully Page No.# 3/5 after sorted out the misunderstanding and having entered into a deed of mutual agreement, the continuance of the present criminal proceedings would be futile as there is no chance of conviction against the petitioner No.2. Therefore, he submits that the criminal proceedings in PSG Sessions Case No.08/2024, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pasighat may be quashed. 6. Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that though the offence alleged is serious being under Section 307 of the IPC, 1860, the matter appears to have been settled between the petitioners, being the husband and wife and they appears to be living peacefully together after the incident. Therefore, he submits that he would not have any serious objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 8. On consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that both the petitioners are wife and husband and the FIR appears to have been lodged out of heated argument between the petitioners. It appears that both the petitioners have realised and sorted out their differences, thereby entered into an amicable settlement on 18.06.2024. The petitioners thereafter are stated to be living peacefully as wife and husband. The alleged offence is under Section 307 of the IPC, 1860, which is serious in nature, for which, normally, this Court, would not quash the criminal proceedings. However, having considered that the petitioners are living peacefully as wife and husband after the incident and also decided to continue in life, I am of the view that interest of justice would be served, if the criminal proceedings in the PSG Sessions Case No.08/2024, against the petitioner No.2 is quashed. Page No.# 4/5 9. Quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023), has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after consideration of its earlier decision in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Lakshmi Narayan and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “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 Page No.# 5/5 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 managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.“ 10. Having considered that the alleged offence has arisen out of matrimonial relationship and the petitioners have settled the differences between themselves and thereafter, living peacefully as wife and husband and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the present case is one of the cases wherein the inherent power of this Court is fit to be invoked. 11. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in PSG Sessions Case No.08/2024 (corresponding to PSG WPS Case No.25/2023), under Section 307 of the IPC, 1860, pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pasighat, is hereby set aside and quashed. 12. Criminal petition is allowed and stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant