Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040011132025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./151/2025 Khya Fangcha and Anr Son of Late Tadung Khya, resident near Banquet Hall, Bungalow No.4, Niti Vihar, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Purnima Dongpong Rijiju Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Buluk Nichi Dongpong Resident near Homeopathic College Vivek Vihar 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 : Rajesh Sonar, Khyoda Yayo,Meenakshi Jerang,Michi Khambo,M Basar,Binny Nyaruce,R Taku Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 03-07-2025 Heard Ms. R. Taku, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for setting aside and quashing of the Chargesheet No. 75/2018 arising out of Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 97/2017, filed in connection with the FIR dated 06.10.2017, registered on 07.10.2017, under Sections 498A/417/323/506/500 of the IPC, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 617/2017. 3. This is a joint petition filed by both the accused (petitioner No. 1) and the informant (petitioner No. 2). 4. The case of the prosecution is that the informant stated, in the FIR dated 06.10.2017, that she was mentally and physically harassed by the accused person i.e. the husband of the informant/the petitioner No. 1, since the day of their marriage. She stated in the FIR that the accused person does not return home at night without informing his whereabouts and she came to know that he had a bad habit of gambling. She later came to know that the accused person had a long-term relationship with another lady, having twin children, which was informed by the sister of the informant, and that on one fine day, i.e. on 22.09.2016, she was informed that the accused’s car was parked at a particular place and based on the information, when she went there, she found the accused person in the house of a lady and saw that the accused person and the lady sitting in a comfortable position as if they are husband and wife. Page No.# 3/5 Thereafter, the accused physically assaulted and humiliated the informant in front of the lady. Thereafter, the informant left her matrimonial house. 5. The Police registered the case on 07.10.2017, under Sections 498A/417/323/506/500 of the IPC and submitted Chargesheet being Chargesheet No. 75/2018 and the charges were framed. 6 Ms. R. Taku, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioner No. 1 (accused) and the petitioner No. 2 (informant), mutually agreed for settlement and by entering into a deed of settlement, dated 28.12.2024, the parties have been settled their disputes. Ms. Taku, learned counsel further submits that both the petitioners (accused and the informant) mutually agreed to live separately and are, now, married to their respective partners and are living a peaceful life. 7. On the other hand, Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the signatures appearing in the deed of settlement and the affidavit filed in the instant petition of the petitioners seems different. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. 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 Page No.# 4/5 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 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. 10. In the instant case, it is noticed that the dispute was between a husband and wife and the FIR was lodged way back on 06.10.2017. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the parties have agreed to stay separately and they have married to their respective partners during the pendency of the case. 11. It is also observed by the Apex Court that in cases where possibility of conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice, the same can be quashed on settlement. 12. In the deed of settlement which was entered into between the parties, dated 28.12.2024, it is written that the marital discord arose between the parties when the petitioners were husband and wife, merely owning to an allegation of offence of extra marital affairs of the husband with another lady and that the marital discord was due to a misunderstanding. Both the parties have mutually agreed to settle the case and the parties have agreed to bury the previous discord against each other and have promised to maintain cordial relationship with each other since both the parties are currently settled with Page No.# 5/5 their respective partners. They have also decided that they will file a joint application for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner No. 1 i.e. the accused. 13. Although the learned Public Prosecutor has raised doubts about the authenticity of deed of agreement by looking into the signatures of the parties, but bare perusal of the same, the signatures with the affidavit filed in the present case does not seems to be different. 14. Since this is a case related to a matrimonial dispute and the parties have settled their dispute by way of a deed of mutual settlement and are married to their respective partners. As such, the FIR dated 06.10.2017, registered on 07.10.2017, in connection with Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 97/2017, registered under Sections 498A/417/323/ 506/500 of the IPC as well as the Charge-Sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 75/2018, dated 04.08.2018, submitted in connection with the aforesaid case as well as the subsequent proceedings, are quashed for the ends of justice. 15. In view of the above, the criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant