Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040011352023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./148/2023 Miss Dadam Mengu and 2 Ors. D/o Mr. Orang Mengu, Permanent resident of Village Monku, P.O/P.S Pasighat, District East Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Jobom Chang Mengu Age: Occupation : S/O Tapir Mengu Village Sibo Pasighat P.O/P.S Pasighat District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Anu Tabing Age: Occupation : S/o Mr. Lopak Tabing Permanent resident of Village Monku P.O/P.S Pasighat District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh. M. No. 91943602746 VERSUS THE STATE OF AP Through the Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Vijay Jamoh, S Tsering,Bakar Dulom,Kaling Mibang,B Padung Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 22.10.2025 Heard Mr. B. Padung, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application jointly filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), praying for quashing of criminal proceedings in Pasighat Session Case No. 33/2022, under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, arising out of Pasighat P.S. Case No. 159/2017, pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pasighat against the petitioner No. 3 on the basis of settlement between the parties. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.09.2017, a written F.I.R. was lodged by one Shri Jobom Chang Mengu (petitioner No. 2 herein) alleging that Shri Anu Tabing (petitioner No. 3 herein) had been making repeated phone calls to his sister- Miss Dadam Mengu (petitioner No. 1 herein) at midnight. When she went to his house to question such conduct, petitioner No. 3 allegedly abused her and assaulted her with a piece of burning wood, and thereafter attack her with a dao, causing a cut injury on the left side of her stomach. On the basis of the said FIR, Pasighat P.S. Case No. 159/2017 was registered under Sections 354D/307/324 IPC. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against petitioner No. 3 under the said sections, and the case is presently pending trial. Page No.# 3/7 4. During pendency of the trial, the petitioners, being the close relatives and neighbors, amicably settled their dispute in a village level Kebang held on 06.06.2023 headed by the Gaon Burah as Chairman of the Kebang. The Kebang resolved that the parties would forgive each other and maintain their earlier relationship as uncle, nephew and niece and thereby accepted the apology tendered by the petitioner No. 3. The Kebang also decided that if the injury sustained by the petitioner No. 1 gets infected, the petitioner No. 3 shall bear the medical expenses and the petitioner No. 3 shall not repeat such mischief in future. Subsequently, a Deed of Agreement dated 26.07.2023 was executed between the parties confirming the decision of Kebang and settled the matter amicably. 5. Mr. B. Padung, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are no longer willing to pursue the matter and presently they are living a peaceful life thereby maintaining cordial relationship with each other being a close family relatives, the criminal proceedings pending trial against the petitioner No. 3 may be set aside and quashed. He submits that although the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 is willing to withdraw the case against the petitioner No. 3, Section 307 of Indian Penal Code being non-compoundable offence, the learned Trial Court is not in a position to consider the case for compoundable in terms of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, he submits that since the petitioners have settled the matters amicably being close relatives, the continuance of criminal proceedings would be futile and the abuse of process of law as chances of conviction against the petitioner No. 3 is bleak and remote. Page No.# 4/7 6. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, in his usual fairness, submits that although the injury inflicted on the petitioner No. 1 by the petitioner No. 3 is by a sharp weapon with simple in nature and the offence alleged is under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, which is serious in nature, the petitioners, being the close relatives having been amicably settled the matter, the prosecution would not have any objection if this Court pass an appropriate orders for quashing the criminal proceedings in Pasighat Session Case No. 33/2022, under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. 7. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, petitioner No. 1 is the niece of the petitioner No. 3 and the informant/petitioner No. 2 is the brother of petitioner No. 1, who is also nephew of petitioner No. 3. 9. As alleged, record reveals that on 11.09.2017, the petitioner No. 3 had been making repeated phone calls to the petitioner No. 1 at midnight. On such continuous phone call, the petitioner No. 1 had received one of the last calls and asked the petitioner No. 3 to call in the morning. However, the petitioner No. 3 did not listen. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 went to the house of the petitioner No. 3, whereupon the petitioner No. 3 allegedly started abusing her and inflicted injury to the petitioner No. 1, which is simple in nature. The charge has been framed against the petitioner No. 3 under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, although the charge-sheet was filed under Section 354D/307/324 of Indian Penal Code. Page No.# 5/7 10. Record further reveals that on 06.07.2023, a Kebang was convened in the presence of all the family members of the petitioners, wherein the dispute was amicably settled. It was resolved that the parties would henceforth maintain their familial relationship as uncle, nephew and niece. The Kebang further decided that in the event of any infection arising from the injury sustained by petitioner No. 1, the expenses for treatment shall be borne by petitioner No. 3. It also reveals that the petitioner No. 3 has made an undertaking that he will not repeat such act of mischief in future and would not cause any problem to the families in near future. 11. Thereafter, a deed of agreement was entered between the petitioners on 26.07.2023, whereby the parties have amicably settled the matter with the intervention of their respective family members and well-wishers. The deed, inter alia, provides that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 shall not have any objection if a competent Court discharge the petitioner No. 3 from the criminal case at any stage of trial, thereby acknowledging the amicable settlement arrived at among all the family members. It has also been stated at the Bar that the petitioners are presently maintaining cordial relations with each other as close relatives, being uncle, nephew and niece 12. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held, which is reproduced here-in-below: “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 Page No.# 6/7 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 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.” 13. Reverting back to the present case, as noted above, although the charge has been framed under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the petitioner No. 3 has caused an injury to the petitioner No. 1, which is simple in nature, since the parties have settled the matters amicably by involving their Page No.# 7/7 respective family members being the close relatives and also on the intervention of the village authorities by way of Kebang proceeding as well as living their life peacefully by maintaining cordial relationship amongst themselves, I am of the considered view that continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner No. 3 would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of process of law as it would not be possible for the prosecution to establish the case against the petitioner No. 3 in view of the settlement arrived at between them. Thus, this Court is of the view that the present case is one of the cases wherein the inherent power of this Court may be invoked. 14. For the foregoing reasons 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 is a fit case for invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) to secure the ends of justice. 15. Accordingly, criminal proceedings in Pasighat Session Case No. 33/2022, under Section 307 Indian Penal Code (arising out of Pasighat P.S. Case No. 159/2017), pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pasighat against the petitioner No. 3, stands quashed. 16. Criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant