Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040010432025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./135/2025 Luktum Potom and Anr Son of Late Taluk Potom, resident of Darak, PO and PS Darak, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tumken Potom Age: Occupation : Son of Luktum Potom resident of Darak PO and PS Darak West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Romjir Rakshap, K Perme Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 26-06-2025 Heard Mr. R. Rakshap, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. T. Jini, the Page No.# 2/5 learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. By filing this petition jointly under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the F.I.R being Darak P.S. Case/FIR No. 01/2022, dated 03.12.2022; the subsequent Charge-Sheet No. 01/2023, dated 14.10.2023 and the criminal proceedings in G. R. Case No. 130/2023, under Section 380 IPC, pending trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aalo, West Siang District. 3. The main ground for the quashing of the aforesaid FIR, Charge-sheet and the proceeding, is that, both the informant (petitioner No. 1 herein) as well as the accused person (petitioner No. 2 herein), have entered into an agreement, by a Deed of Agreement, 24.06.2025 [Annexed as Anexure-3 (A) to the petition]. 4. It is further noticed that the present petition is preferred by both the informant as well as the accused person and the same is a joint petition filed for the quashing of the aforesaid FIR, Charge-sheet and the proceeding. 5. The allegation against the accused person (the petitioner No. 2) is revealed from the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the father of the accused person (the petitioner No. 1), wherein, the informant has stated that his son who is 21 (Twenty- One) years of age is a habitual thief and that he has stolen many articles, including valuable local antique items and sold the same to others. The informant also stated that his son is a drug addicted person, who was kept in the rehab for 6 (Six) months for his treatment but he could not recover from the said addiction. 6. The Police, on receipt of the FIR, registered the case, under section 380 IPC. On completion of the investigation, the Police laid the Charge-sheet, on 14.10.2023 and submitted the same before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, West Siang District. 7. Mr. R. Rakshap, learned counsel for the petitioners, states before this Court, that the FIR was lodged by the father of the accused person before the Police Station, as Page No.# 3/5 the father had no other alternative, as his son had become a habitual thief and did not recover from his drug addiction, although he was kept in the rehab, 6 (Six) numbers of times. He has placed, the Deed of Agreement, between the father and the son, wherein, the father had stated that he had to lodge the FIR only to put his son into some fear and pressurize him to stop from excessive alcohol consumption as his son was addicted beyond controllable limits and that his son under intoxication, creates tension in the family members and being infuriated, by the behaviour of his son, the father lodged the FIR. 8. It is also stated by Mr. Rakshap, learned counsel for the petitioners that at present, the case is fixed for Consideration of Charges, before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. The case has not reached the trial, as of now. 9. On the other hand, Ms. Jini, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, states that the FIR was lodged in the year 2022 and she is not aware as to the stage of the proceeding before the learned CJM, Aalo. However, in her usual fairness, she has submitted, that since the incident is between the son and the father and the son is admittedly, an addict, she has no objection if the case is quashed. She also stated that continuation of the case would not result in any good consequences and in view of the Deed of Settlement, if the son recovers, as it was stated therein, he will not continue his bad habit. 10. I have heard the parties and I have gone through the records. 11. The incident has resulted due to a very unpleasant situation in a household. A father had to lodge an FIR against his son. The contents of the FIR shows that the father had tried to treat his son in the best possible manner, but being unable to do the same, he had to lodge the FIR. He stated in the FIR that his son is a habitual thief and he had stolen many articles and sold it to someone only due to the addiction. In the Deed of Settlement between the informant i.e., the father (petitioner No. 1 herein) and the accused person, i.e. the son (petitioner No. 2 herein), it is stated in clear Page No.# 4/5 terms that the father had no other option but to lodge the FIR and his only intention while lodging the same, was that his son understands and stops the bad habit of consuming alcohol and drugs. The father in the Deed of Settlement has stated that the articles that his son sold, were his son's articles only, since he is the only son. It was further stated in the Deed of Agreement, that the accused person i.e., the son, is in a rehabilitation centre and is doing good and there is every chance, that he would restart his life, without any addiction. 12. It is a settled position of law, as held in various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court such as in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Apex Court had observed that the High Court while quashing the criminal proceedings on settlement being arrived at between the parties, must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. It was held that the cases which involves heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity and offences such as murder, rape and dacoity etc. cannot be quashed even when the victim or victim’s family and the offender reaches a settlement. Further, the Apex Court has observed that the criminal cases which is civil in nature or in relation to family disputes or a commercial transaction, where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute between them, the same can be quashed by the High Court, on facts and circumstances of the said case. Same observations have been made in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbhatbhai Vs. the State of Gujarat, reported in (2017) 9 SSC 641 and in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SSC 688. 13. Since, the present case is between the father and the son and the son is an addicted person and father has made many endeavours to cure his son from the addiction and left with no other alternative, he had to lodge the FIR; this Court, in the present facts and circumstances, quashes the F.I.R being Darak P.S. Case/FIR No. 01/2022, dated 03.12.2022; the subsequent Charge-Sheet No. 01/2023, dated Page No.# 5/5 14.10.2023 and the criminal proceedings in G. R. Case No. 130/2023 under Section 380 IPC, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aalo, West Siang District 14. Accordingly, the instant criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant