Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040016462024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./207/2024 Pritam Pordung and 3 Ors Son of Shri Kojum Pordung, a resident of Village Pordung, PO Kenawa, PS Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Nikil Pordung Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Kojum Pordung a resident of Pordung village PO Kenawa PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Chowk Pordung Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Taluk Pordung a resident of Pordung Village PO Kenawa PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Langkung Ragia Age: Occupation : Son of Late Langkung Tasuk a resident of Narba Colony PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/6 VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Gegum Lollen, T T Tara,Gamken Bam,Kirmani Lollen,Geken Ingo, B. Takar Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 19-02-2025 Heard Mr. B. Takar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application jointly filed by four petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for quashing of the proceedings of the GR Case No. 275/2018, arising out of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 116/2018, under Sections 341/324/34 IPC, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, on the basis of mutual settlement between the parties. 3. The petitioners No. 1, Shri Pritam Pordung, petitioner No. 2, Shri Nikil Pordung and the petitioner No. 3, Shri Chowk Pordung are the accused persons, and the petitioner No. 4, Shri Langkung Ragia is the informant in the above G. R. Case No. 275/2018 arising out of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 116/2018 under Sections 341/324/34 IPC. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 14.04.2018, the petitioner No. 4 lodged a written F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Itanagar, against accused petitioner No. 1, alleging therein, that on 13.04.2018 at about 11.30 pm at Nyokum Page No.# 3/6 Lapang Ground, while he and his 2 (two) friends namely, Charu Deepuk and Pritam Pordung were having party together in the Longtey festival ground stall, the accused petitioner No. 1 came and started argument with his two friends and when he tried to pacify them, the accused petitioner No. 1 started quarrelling and used abusive language against them, and thereafter the accused petitioner called his associates and assaulted him with local “dao” due to which, he received injuries on his person for which he received treatment. 5. Basing on the above written F.I.R., a case was registered being Itanagar P.S. Case No. 116/2018, under Sections 341/324/34 IPC, and during investigation, the accused petitioners Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were arrested. It is stated that after completion of the investigation, the police has submitted the case into a Charge-sheet against the accused petitioners Nos. 1, 2 & 3 for commission of offences under Sections 341/324/34 IPC. 6. Thereafter, the case was taken cognizance of by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Yupia, and charges have also framed against the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 & 3 for offence under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C. and since, the offence under Section 324 IPC is non-compoundable offence and the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate does not have the power to compound the case, the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for setting aside and quashing of the F.I.R., dated 14.04.2018, Charge-sheet No. 163/2018, dated 19.06.2018, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 275/2018. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the case, the case has been amicably settled between the parties by executing a deed of settlement dated 26.08.2024. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, further submits that the informant, petitioner No. 4 has forgiven the accused petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 for their misbehaviour with him in the festival ground on the incident’s night. Page No.# 4/6 Additionally, he submitted that there is no any enmity between the parties, and the informant, petitioner No. 4 has expressed that since he has no further grievances against the accused petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3, he no longer desires to pursue with the matter before the Trial Court. However, since the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate does not have the power to compound a non-compoundable case, the petitioners are before this Court with a prayer for setting aside and quashing of the aforementioned G. R. Case No. 275/2018 arising out of Itanagar P. S. Case No. 116/2018. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case involves with allegation of physical assault by the accused petitioners no.1 on the informant petitioner No. 4 at night in the festival ground, and as per the injury report, the injury caused to the alleged victim/petitioner No. 4 was simple in nature, and subsequently, the parties have amicably settled the matter consequent upon the victim petitioner No. 4 having forgiven the accused petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3; therefore, the said offence is against an individual person and does not affect the society at large. Moreover, consequent upon the amicable settlement of the case between the parties, the informant petitioner No. 4, does not have any further grievances against them. Therefore, the informant petitioner No. 4 does not want to pursue with the matter any further against the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Under the circumstances, the proceeding of the case against the accused petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, would cause unnecessary harassment to the parties; hence, prays for setting aside the proceeding. 9. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that although a case was registered against the accused petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 for offence under Sections 341/324/34 IPC, however, during hearing on the question of charge, the offence under Sections 341 has been dropped against the accused petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3. She further submits that the document (Annexure-5 of the petition) shows that the matter has been amicably settled amongst the parties with Page No.# 5/6 the intervention of the elders and the relatives of both the parties and executed the compromise “Deed of Settlement Agreement” on 26.08.2024. She further fairly submits that since the matter has already been settled amicably and the offence charged against the accused petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are not a serious one as the injuries was also simple in nature, she has no objection if this Court passes appropriate order in exercise of the inherent power provided under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 10. I have heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. I have also perused the records produced before this Court. 11. It appears that the incident took place during Longtey festival, when the informant and the accused persons were enjoying at the festival ground in the stall at night. And after the verbal argument between the parties, there has been some physical assault due to which the informant/petitioner No. 4 had received minor injuries. However, during the pendency of the trial, the informant petitioner, No. 4 has forgiven the accused petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as a result, the parties have amicably settled the matter and executed a settlement deed. It is also seen that the as the informant, petitioner No. 4 does not have any further grievances against the accused persons, he does not wish to pursue with the case against the accused petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 12. Furthermore, the above case appears to be in between the informant, petitioner No. 4 and the accused petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3, and it does not affect the society at large, and since the parties have amicably settled the matter by executing the compromise deed; under the circumstances, it appears that the continuation of the case before the Trial Court would only cause hardship to all the parties and waste the precious judicial time and thus, it would only result in futile exercise. In view of the above, I find sufficient force and logic in the submission of the learned counsel for the Page No.# 6/6 petitioners, which has the support of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 13. Further, in such circumstances, it is now well settled that even if the offence alleged against the accused are non-compoundable offence, the High Court or the Apex Court in exercise of their inherent power may intercept the pending criminal proceeding. In this regard, there are catenas of cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, however, this Court may gainfully place reliance on the principle of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2021 SCC online 384. 14. In light of the above decision and considering that the case has been amicably settled between the parties; this Court is of the opinion that the pending criminal proceedings in G. R. Case No. 274/2018 arising out of the Itanagar P.S. Case No.116/2018, under Sections 324/34 IPC needs to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, the G. R. Case No. 275/2018 arising out of the Itanagar P.S. Case No.116/2018, charged under Sections 324/34 IPC against the accused Shri Pritam Pordung; Shri Nikil Pordung and Shri Chowk Pordung, pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia is, hereby, set aside and quashed. 16. With the above observation, this criminal petition is allowed and disposed of. 17. Return the Trial Court Record (TCR). JUDGE Comparing Assistant