Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040012342025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./162/2025 Smti Kakbom Gee and Anr C/o Shri Takak Gee, resident of Huto Village, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Gichik Tang Age: Occupation : Son of Gichik Punong permanent resident of Village Roing PO and PS Sangram Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh presently residing at Jully Road Ganga PO and PS Ganga Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Penjom Siga, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 08.09.2025 Heard Mr. P. Siga, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This joint application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for the quashing and setting aside of G.R. Case No. 480/2015 in connection with WPS Case No. 73/2015, under Sections 447/ 354/392/201/323 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 3. The prosecution case leading to the filing of the present petition is that on 18.07.2015, a written complaint was received from the present petitioner No. 1/informant against petitioner No. 2/accused. Accordingly, FIR was registered as ITA WPS Case No. 73/2015 under Sections 447/354/392/201/323 of the IPC, and investigation commenced. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against petitioner No. 2 for the said offences. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, framed charges against petitioner No. 2 under Sections 447/354/392/201/323 of the IPC. 4. Mr. Siga, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the alleged incident took place in the year 2015, and so far, no evidence has been recorded. Meanwhile, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties by executing a settlement agreement on 17.07.2025. He further submitted that petitioner No. 1/informant and petitioner No. 2/accused are well acquainted, with the petitioner often visiting her restaurant and now both engaged in the same trade of running a restaurant. Also, petitioner No. 2 has adequately compensated petitioner No. 1 for the damages caused during the incident. He further submitted that petitioner No. Page No.# 3/4 1/informant has pardoned petitioner No. 2/accused and has no further grievance against him and does not wish to pursue the matter further. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the matter has been amicably settled and there is no likelihood of conviction, the case against petitioner No. 2 may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS. 6. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has fairly submitted that, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and considering that the incident allegedly occurred due to a misunderstanding, and that petitioner No. 2 has adequately compensated petitioner No. 1, she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and also perused the record. 8. The present case arose from the alleged assault and snatching of a gold chain belonging to petitioner No.1/informant by the accused approximately nine years ago. However, as the parties are engaged in the same trade of running a restaurant, they have amicably settled the matter. The informant/petitioner No.1 now has no further grievance against the accused and does not wish to pursue the case. The matter appears to be of a personal nature and does not affect society at large. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be only a remote possibility of conviction. In view of the above, continuing the proceedings against the accused person would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of law. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of power under 482 of the Code can quashed the criminal proceeding even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society on the ground that there is settlement/compromise between the Page No.# 4/4 victim and the offender. 10. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in[(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in[(2014) 6 SCC 466], as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (supra), where the Apex Court has permitted quashing of proceedings even in noncompoundable offence in cases involved in private disputes which do not affect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case, where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 11. Accordingly, the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 480/2015 in connection with WPS Case No. 73/2015, under Sections 447/ 354/392/201/323 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia against the accused, namely, Shri Gichik Tang (petitioner No.2), is hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 12. With the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant