Page No.# 1/10 GAHC040012532024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./147/2024 Miss Tana Yajo and 19 Ors Daughter of Shri tana Niya, resident of Nirjuli village I, PO and PS Nirjuli, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tana Takum Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tana Shilee permanent resident of Nirjuli PO and PS Nirjuli Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Tana Tamar Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tana Shilee permanent resident of Nirjuli PO and PS Nirjuli Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Niku Ynagfo Age: Occupation : Son of Late Kacha Yangfo permanent resident of Donyi Colony Itanagar Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Sama Yangfo Age: Occupation : Page No.# 2/10 Son of Gumkap Yangfo permanent resident of Village F Sector Naharlagun Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Giogi Yaja Age: Occupation : Son of Giogi Taki resident of Chambang Po and PS Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Yangfo Napdo Age: Occupation : Son of Yangfo Natung resident of Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Tana Loyi Age: Occupation : Son of Tana Chili resident of Doimukh PO and PS Doimukh Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Yangfo Karu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Yangfo Takam resident of Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Yangfo Biri Age: Occupation : Son of Yangfo Tabi resident of Seppa PO and PS Seppa Page No.# 3/10 East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 11: Tayer Akum Age: Occupation : Son of Tayar Tatung resident of Palin Po and PS Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 12: Bamang Gagung Age: Occupation : Son of Bamang Tado resident of Sangram PO and PS Sangram Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. 13: Taring Tama Age: Occupation : Son of Taring Tadik resident of Palin Po and PS Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 14: Taro Yangfo Age: Occupation : Son of Tapo Yangfo resident of Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 15: Bamang Parbe Age: Occupation : Son of Bamang Taha resident of Palin PO and PS Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 4/10 16: Tarak Yangfo Age: Occupation : Son of Tai Yangfo resident of Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 17: Tato Waghe Age: Occupation : Son of Likha Waghe resident of Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 18: Robin Bado Age: Occupation : Son of Tadu Bado resident of Doimukh PO and PS Doimukh Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 19: Yangfo Deb Age: Occupation : Son of Yangfo Taro resident of Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 20: Yangfo John Age: Occupation : Son of Late Yangfo Kache resident of Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Page No.# 5/10 Advocate for the Petitioner : Gimi Tarak, Byabang Mema,Taja Garam Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER 11.02.2025 Heard Ms. B. Mema, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, jointly filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of Criminal Proceedings of G.R. Case No. 287/2016, under Sections 148/149/160/323/354/427/34, IPC, 1860 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, on the basis of settlement. 3. The case set up by the prosecution is that the petitioner no.1 lodged a written complaint before the Officer-In-Charge, Police Station, Nirjuli on 29.04.2016 alleging that the petitioner nos.2, 3 and a group of people physically assaulted her at Nirjuli village-I in the disputed area. Before such written FIR was lodged, a telephonic call was received from one Shri Teli Bani of Nirjuli village-I to the effect that a mob led by Mr. Tana Takum, Tana Tamar and Niku Yangfo have attacked and vandalised the boundary wall which Tana Niya & Family have erected at his plot of land at Nirjuli village-I. Accordingly, the police rushed to the spot and found around 19 persons on the spot. Page No.# 6/10 4. Upon receipt of the said FIR, a case was registered being NRJ P. S. Case No. 25/2016, registered under Sections 354/34, IPC, 1860. The police has arrested the accused persons who are the petitioner nos. 2 to 20. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet on 03.08.2018, under Section 148/149/160/323/427/34 IPC. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners Ms. B. Mema, that during the pendency of the case, the petitioners have entered into a deed of compromise on 09.08.2024 as the dispute relates to land and the petitioner no.1, 2 and 3 are the cousins and rest of the petitioners are the supporters of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3. She submits that having realised that the dispute relates to a plot of land between the cousins, they have settled the matter between them. She further submits that although the FIR alleges a serious offence like molestation, out of anger at the relevant point of time due to the land dispute, the FIR was filed when the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 came to the spot with a group of people and destroyed the boundary wall which was constructed by father of the petitioner No. 1. However, on being repentant and realised the mistake and having been decided not to repeat such dispute in near future and to maintain cordial relation with each other, the settlement has already been arrived. She furthermore submits that the settlement/compromise entered between the petitioners is out of their own free will and without any coercion, force or threat and purely for the welfare of their family relation. Therefore, she submits that the criminal proceedings may be quashed in the interest of justice. 7. Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondents submits that since the petitioners have settled the matter, she would not have any serious objection if this Court pass an appropriate order for quashing the criminal Page No.# 7/10 proceedings. However, the deed of compromise annexed in the present petition appears to be not duly stamp and notarized in accordance with the requirement of the law. If the settlement, according to her is not in terms of the requirement of the law with proper stamp or notarized, the same may not have any validity under the law. 8. Regard being had to the submission advanced by the learned Addl. P.P. Ms. L. Hage, on insufficient stamp and the agreement not been notarised, I am in agreement with the such submission, which ought to have been properly stamp and notarized. However, since the petitioners have subscribed to the agreement by putting their signatures as asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the same would not create any bar to consider such compromise in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, this Court deemed it appropriate to accept the deed of agreement dated 01.09.2024, entered between the parties although, the same has not been notarized. 9. Carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record including the deed of compromise. 10. It appears that the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the cousins. The dispute appears to have emanates from the claim of land at Nirjuli village- I. The boundary wall constructed by the family of the petitioner No. 1 appears to have been damaged. Due to such land dispute, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 along with petitioners No. 4 to 20 were found to have visited the place of dispute, wherein, they have damaged the boundary wall, constructed by the family of the petitioner no.1. It is the admitted position that the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are related being the cousins and during the pendency of the criminal proceedings Page No.# 8/10 they have entered into a settlement without their being any coercion or threat but only for the welfare of their family relation. 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the continuance of the present criminal proceedings would be futile as the petitioners have settled the matter, which would amount to abuse of the process of the law. 12. The law on quashment of criminal proceedings has been settled in catena of decisions including the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC 1296 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “13. 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 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; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the Page No.# 9/10 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 thisprovision. 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; 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. 13. In the present case as noted herein above, the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the cousins and due to land dispute the present case has arisen. The petitioner nos. 4 to 20 appears to have supported the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 in Page No.# 10/10 the incident that have occurred at Nirjuli village-I, wherein, the disputed land is situated. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, parties have settled the matter without their being any coercion and only to maintain cordial relation among themselves. Moreso, it is also stated at the bar that the land dispute is also being settled by the parties. 14. In view of discussion made herein above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the present case is one of the cases where inherent power of this Court is fit to be invoked. Accordingly, criminal proceeding of G.R. Case No. 287/2016, under Sections 148/149/160/323/354/427/34, IPC, 1860 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, is hereby quashed. 15. Criminal Petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant