Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040010202025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./130/2025 Shri Tapu Sarke and 2 Ors Son of Late T Sarke, Naharlagun Police Station, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Indrawati Devi Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Ramji Singh C/o OCPS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Miss Yanga Giba Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Takio Giba resident of D Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : J Tsering, Techi Topu,Logsang Yountan,Pekyum Tamin Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 24-06-2025 Heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application, under Section 528 of the BNNS, 2023 praying for quashing and setting aside of the FIR dated 18.11.2024, in connection with Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 139/2024, registered under Section 121(1) of BNS, 2023 as well as the Charge-Sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 12/2025, dated 31.01.2025, submitted in connection with the aforesaid case. 3. This is a joint petition filed by the informant, who is a sub-inspector of police, Naharlagun Police Station, the victim, Smti. Indravati Devi, who is a Constable in Naharlagun Police Station as well as the accused person. 4. The FIR lodged by the informant, i.e. the ASI/petitioner No. 1, reveals that on 18.11.2024, at around 2:30pm, a telephonic information was received from the petitioner No. 3, i.e. the accused person, informing that a person, who is in relationship with the petitioner No. 3, is attempting to commit suicide at her rented house. On being informed, the police went to the place of occurrence and found the person who was trying to commit suicide outside the room of the petitioner No. 3. It is also stated in the FIR that when the police reached, the parents of the boy had also appeared in the police station and they were quarrelling with each other. And the petitioner No. 1, instructed petitioner No. 2, the sentry on duty, to intervene and control the situation and when the petitioner No. 2 tried to separate both the parties, at that juncture, the Page No.# 3/6 petitioner No. 3/the accused person assaulted the constable with her cell phone and injured her. 5. The police after completion of the investigation submitted a charge-sheet as mentioned above. In the charge-sheet, the police on finding a prima facie case under section 121(1) of the BNSS, charged petitioner number 3/the accused, for assaulting the police personnel on duty, at police station and arrested the petitioner No. 3. 6. Mr. Tsering, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted, before the Court, that the petitioner No. 3 i.e. the accused person had no intention to assault the constable who was performing her duty in the police station, but in the spur of the moment, without any evil intention, the petitioner No. 3 hit the petitioner No. 2 with her cell phone and injured her. He also placed the medical report of the petitioner No. 2, i.e. the constable, which he had annexed as Annexure-2 in the petition and the same reveals that there was bruise with swelling on the left side of the forehead and on the lower eyelid. The medical report further shows that the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt impact. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed a deed of mutual settlement entered into between all the three petitioners i.e. the informant, the constable and the accused person, which he has annexed as Annexure-4 in the petition. It was agreed upon in the said deed of settlement that all the three parties have amicably settled their grievances towards each other and that the accused person, i.e. the petitioner No. 3, after realising her mistake, sought for an unconditional apology to both the parties and had also offered to bear all the medical expenses of petitioner No. 2. The agreement was entered into on 02.06.2025 in Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh. As such, Mr. Tsering, learned Page No.# 4/6 counsel for the petitioners pray that the FIR as well as the charge-sheet may be quashed on the aforementioned grounds. 8. On the other hand, Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner No. 3 had in fact assaulted the petitioner No. 2, who is a constable, while she was discharging her official duty and had caused injury on her body and that the offense under section 121 (1) of the BNSS is well established against the petitioner No. 3. She further submitted that this is not a small incident and the same has a serious repercussion on the society inasmuch as a Police Official on duty was assaulted. She submitted that this kind of cases cannot be settled by way of a mutual agreement between the parties. She also submitted that if this kind of cases are quashed on mutual settlement, it will send an unpleasant indication to the society at large. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that in forming an opinion whether proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of the inherent power provided under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the said inherent power. The inherent power provided under Section 528 of the BNSS, is to be exercised sparingly and to secure the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court. Further, the decision as to whether the First Information Report should be quashed or not, on the ground of settlement between the accused person and the victim, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and there can be no exhaustive principles to adhere for the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a number of judgments, has observed that in cases which involves heinous and serious offences involving Page No.# 5/6 mental depravity and offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot be quashed though the victim and the accused person reaches a settlement. The Apex Court has observed the same because the said offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact upon the society. Further the Apex Court had observed that offences relating to a civil dispute and a commercial transaction may be quashed on settlement. The Apex Court had also observed that in cases where possibility of conviction is remote and that the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice, the same can be quashed on settlement. 11. In the instant case, it is noticed that the accused person i.e. the petitioner No. 3 is a young lady, 28 years of age and she was the one who had informed the police to get help while her friend was attempting to commit suicide in her rented house. On her information the Police came to her house and took her to the Police Station for further investigation. When the parents of boy who tried to commit suicide reached the Police Station and were quarrelling with each other, the petitioner No. 2 came to control the situation. At that juncture, when petitioner No. 2 tried to separate both the parties, petitioner No. 3, at the spur of the moment and being a young girl involved in such a situation, assaulted petitioner No. 2 not with a weapon but with a cell phone. The situation the petitioner No. 3 was facing at that point of time, when the parents of her friend, with whom she had relationship and who tried to commit suicide, were quarrelling, could be visualised without much effort. She was undergoing a tough time before the parents of the said boy as well as before the police and as such it can be deduced that she was not in her proper state of mind. As such, in the said facts, it can be stated that if the Court proceedings are initiated and the Trial is conducted, the same would not have reached to any proper Page No.# 6/6 conclusion and the same would also cause oppression on the parties concerned. 12. In view of the conclusion reached above, this Court in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, quashes the First Information Report, dated 19.11.2024, in connection with Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 139/2024, registered under Section 121(1) of the BNS as well as the Charge- Sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 12/2025, dated 31.01.2025, submitted in connection with the aforesaid case along with the proceedings pending, if any, before any learned Court. 13. The criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant