Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040012282024 2025:GAU-AP:189 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./143/2024 Tara Tok and 2 Ors Son of Taga Tok, resident of Village Diderso, PO and PS Pakke Kessang, District Pakke Kessang, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Chacho Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Kame Bagang a resident of Type III Colony Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Jackie Bui @ Jeki Bui Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Yumje Bui resident of PI Colony Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : N Rama, T Rahul,N Kuma,N Kanu,P Tatam Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Date : 05-02-2025 Heard Mr. N. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, jointly filed by the petitioners, praying for quashment of the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No.884/2023 under Sections 341/326/34 IPC and/or for compounding of non-compoundable offences pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia, on the basis of the settlement. 3. The case as set up by the prosecution is that the written FIR was lodged by the petitioner No.3 to the effect that on 26.10.2023 at around 0100 to 0230 hours, 2 unknown persons had attacked him with sharp weapons i.e Dao and knife without any reason outside the Hang Out Bar A-Sector, Naharlagun and attempted to murder him, as a result of which, he had sustained grievous injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body and admitted at TRIHMS Hospital. It is stated that assailants had come in a White Swift car and Dao and knife were taken out from their vehicle and cut his head and body, consequent to which the petitioner No.3 became unconscious on the spot. Page No.# 3/9 4. Upon receipt of the said FIR, the case was registered being Naharlagun P.S. Case No.163/2024 under Sections 341/326/34 IPC. On completion of the investigation, the police had laid the charge sheet against the petitioners No.1 and 2 under Section 341/326/34 IPC, which is stated to be pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia at the pre-cognizance stage. 5. During the pendency of the case, the parties have entered into a mutual settlement by Deed of Settlement dated 22.01.2024. The Deed of Agreement was executed to maintain cordial relations between them as the incident had occurred under the influence of the alcohol. Thereafter, the petitioners No.1 and 2 had paid an amount of Rs.1,500,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only to the petitioner No.3 for the expenses incurred for medical treatment. 6. Mr. N. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners being the childhood friends were at Hang Out Bar, A-Sector at Naharlagun. After taking some drinks, under the influence, there was a fight amongst themselves as a result of which petitioner No.3 has sustained grievous injuries. The injuries caused was not intentional, however, on FIR being lodged by the petitioner No.3, the petitioners No.1 and 2 were arrested and charge sheet was filed. Now, realising that the petitioners are childhood friends and that incident had happened under the influence of alcohol, without there being any intention, they have decided to settle the matter and maintain cordial relationship. Accordingly, Page No.# 4/9 Deed of Agreement was entered into and medical expenses of petitioner No.3 has already been borne by the petitioners No.1 and 2 by paying an amount of Rs.1,500,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only. Therefore, he submits that even if the proceeding is allowed to continue, no purpose would be served as the chances of conviction are bleak on having been settled the matter amicably. As such, non-compoundable offence under Section 326 IPC may be compounded and criminal proceedings may be quashed. 7. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that although the petitioner No.3 had sustained grievous injuries, the parties have settled the dispute and the petitioners No.1 and 2 have paid an amount of Rs.1,500,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only to the petitioner No.3 for the expenses incurred for medical treatment, this Court may pass appropriate orders as deem fit in the interest of justice. He has placed a judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of H. N. Pandakumar Vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in (2025) SCC online SC 38 whereby, Hon’ble Supreme Court in somehow similar matter has given effect to the settlement or compromise between the parties even after conviction under Section 326 IPC. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The law on quashment and compounding of non-compoundable offences has been settled by now in the catena of decision of Hon’ble Page No.# 5/9 Supreme Court. One of such cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court is the case of State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein it has held which is reproduced herein:- “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: i) 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; ii) 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; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Actor 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; iv) offences under Section 307IPC and the Arms Act etc. Page No.# 6/9 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; Page No.# 7/9 v) 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 impact 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. In the present case, admittedly, the incident had happened whereby the petitioners No.1 and 2 appears to have attacked the petitioner No.3, as a result of which the petitioner No.3 sustained grievous injuries. Upon completion of investigation, prima facie case having been established, the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners No.1 and 2. However, during pendency, the petitioners have entered into a mutual settlement by executing a Deed of Settlement dated 22.01.2024, whereby, they have agreed to bury the resentment of incident which occurred on the intervening night of the 25.10.2023, due to misunderstanding and under the influence of the alcohol, and now they have decided to maintain cordial relationship and live peacefully. It is also taken note of the fact that the petitioners No.1 and 2 had paid an amount of Rs.1,500,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only to the petitioner No.3 for the expenses incurred for the medical treatment as the petitioner No.3 had sustained grievous injuries in the incident. Page No.# 8/9 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances in this present case, that even if the proceeding is allowed to be continued, in my considered opinion, it would be futile as the chances of convictions are bleak and remote which may amount to abuse of process of law. As placed before this Court by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H. N. Pandakumar (Supra) has observed that in the light of amicable settlement and the complainant’s unequivocal consent, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the present application. While the offence under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable under the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the exceptional circumstances of this case, including the voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the exercise of this Court’s inherent powers to give effect to the compromise. Accordingly, even after the conviction under Section 326 IPC, the settlement and compromise was accepted. 12. In view of what has been taken note and discussed hereinabove, and the law laid down and the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cases, I am of the view that the present case is one of the cases where inherent power of this Court is fit to be invoked. Accordingly, non-compoundable offence (Section 326 IPC) is hereby compounded and the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No. 884/2023 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia, is hereby quashed. 13. Criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. Page No.# 9/9 JUDGE Comparing Assistant