Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040017702024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./220/2024 Smti Techi Yadir Taba and Anr Wife of Taba Tassar, resident of Amba Village, Doimukh, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Taba Tassar Age: Occupation : Son of Late Taba Tajik resident of Sangring Village Sagalee PO and PS Sagalee Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Taba Topu, Tajoy Eru,Tem Pahi,Likha Kagung,Tokdak Tamin Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 11.03.2025 Heard Mr. T. Tamin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the F.I.R. of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 112/2020, under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code; Charge-Sheet No. 95/2021; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 243/2020, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Tamin, learned counsel for the petitioners, that both the accused as well as the informant/victim of the case have jointly filed the present petition as petitioner Nos. 2 & 1, respectively. He further submitted that both the petitioners are husband and wife and due to some misunderstanding only, the F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner No. 2. However, subsequently, they have amicably settled the matter by executing a deed of mutual settlement in presence of their family members and presently they are residing peacefully as husband and wife without any differences. He further submitted that as the case has been registered and charge-sheeted under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, which is a non-compoundable offence, the matter cannot be compromised before the learned Trial Court below and therefore the present petition has been preferred. More so, he submitted Page No.# 3/6 that since the matter has already been settled, the informant/victim and the other witnesses will not adduce evidence against the present accused/petitioner No. 2 even if the case is allowed to be proceeded further and hence, there is remote chance of conviction. 4. Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that since both the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and the entire dispute arose only due to misunderstanding out of their matrimonial relationship and they are no longer willing to proceed with the case, the State has no objection in the event this petition is allowed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the materials available on record and it is seen that the present petition is jointly preferred by the victim/informant and the accused person as petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, respectively. It also appears that they have resolved their dispute amicably by executing a deed of mutual settlement and they are now living peacefully together as husband and wife without any differences. 6. In the case of Narender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and when the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal cases would be futile, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the criminal proceeding in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court in non-compoundable cases, when the Page No.# 4/6 complainant does not want to continue with their own case after their settlement outside the Court. It is further held that “when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:- (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.” 7. Further, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “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: 15.1. 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; 15.2. 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; 15.3. 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; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. 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 Page No.# 5/6 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; 15.5. 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 impart 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.” 8. Here in the instant case, it is seen that the dispute between the informant/victim and the accused person has arisen due to misunderstanding out of their matrimonial relationship and they have resolved their dispute amicably by executing a deed of mutual settlement and hence, it can be held that the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak as it is unlikely that the informant/petitioner No. 1 will depose against the accused/petitioner No. 2, and in that event allowing the proceeding to continue before the learned Court below would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. 9. In view of above facts and circumstances and also considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case laws referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be meted out if the petition is Page No.# 6/6 allowed and therefore, I find that it is a fit case wherein the inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 can be invoked to quash the proceeding pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The F.I.R. of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 112/2020, under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code; Charge-Sheet No. 95/2021; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 243/2020, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, stand quashed. 10. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant