Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040014982025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./198/2025 Devkanto Sinung and Anr Son of Domesor Sinung, permanent resident of Village Oyan, PO and PS Sille (Oyan),East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at H Sector, Itanagar, PO RK Mission, PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Rijumoni Nanda Sinung Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Aludhar Doley a permanent resident of Village Oyan Po and PS Sille (Oyan) East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at H Sector Itanagar PO RK Mission PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : N Rama, T Loma,Tacha Noma,Techi Ita Tara,Dindo Boni,Teshi Aaku,T Rahul,N Kuma,N Kanu,P Tatam Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 04.09.2025 Heard Mr. N. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Gyati Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/4 2. The petitioners have jointly filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, praying for setting aside of the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 685/2016, arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 90/2016, under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief fact in the present case are that the petitioner No. 1 (husband) and the petitioner No. 2(wife) were married in the year 1993 and two children were born out of their wedlock, one on which, however, expired. Due to some matrimonial discord, the parties started living separately since the year 2015. Subsequently, the informant/petitioner No. 2(wife) lodged a written First Information Report(FIR) leading to registration of the present Women P.S. Case under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No. 1. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, took cognizance of the case, and framed charge under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/petitioner No. 1(husband). 4. It is submitted at the Bar that during the pendency of the proceedings, both the parties have amicably resolved their disputes by executing a mutual divorce agreement on 09.02.2025 wherein, the petitioner No. 2(wife) has categorically stated that since the matter has been amicably settled, she has no further grievance against the petitioner No. 1(husband) and hence, she does not wish to pursue the matter any further. The petitioner No. 2(wife) further agreed that she will cooperate for the withdrawal of the present case from the Court. 5. In terms of the settlement, the parties have filed a joint petition before the Court of learned District Judge, Yupia, for dissolution of their marriage and by a decree of divorce passed by the learned District Judge, Yupia, the marriage between the petitioner No. 1(husband) and petitioner No. 2(wife) has been Page No.# 3/4 dissolved. 6. Mr. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, has fairly submitted that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioners, herein; he has no objection if the proceedings in the present case before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, is set aside. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Mr. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & ors. V. State of Haryana & anr., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, wherein, it was held that the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, can be quashed in exercise of the inherent power, if the parties have settled the matter and under such circumstances, the continuance of such proceeding, would amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. Mr. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners, has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & ors. V. State of Telangana & anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine 1234, wherein, it was reiterated that where matrimonial disputes are amicably settled and the marriage itself is dissolved; the criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, ought not to be continued. 10. In the present case, since the marriage between the parties have already been dissolved by a decree of divorce and the informant/petitioner No. 2(wife) has clearly expressed that she does not have further grievance and consented for Page No.# 4/4 setting aside of the criminal proceedings; no useful purpose would be served by continuing the present trial, it would rather cause harassment to the parties. 11. In the light of the above-noted decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the observation made hereinabove; the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, is hereby allowed. 12. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 685/2016, arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 90/2016, under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, against the petitioner No. 1(husband), namely, Devkanto Sinung, are hereby set aside and quashed. 13. With the above directions, the instant criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant