JUDGMENT : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. H. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The instant criminal petition has been filed jointly by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside of the FIR dated 24.01.2026, registered as Itanagar Women P.S. Case No.05/2026, corresponding to GR Case No.63/2026, registered under Sections 85/79/351(2) of BNS, 2023, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the petitioner No.2 lodged an FIR dated 20.01.2026, before the Officer-in- Charge, Women Police Station, Itanagar, alleging that the accused, her husband has subjected her to continuous mental and physical cruelty, including assault, intimidation and use of abusive and derogatory language. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused assaulted her with a dao in the year 2023 and again attempted to kill her on 06.12.2025. It is further alleged that due to fear for her life, she left her matrimonial home on 26.12.2025. The informant (petitioner No.1) has also alleged that the accused, in connivance with his family members, is conspiring to cause her harm and was searching for her. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 05/2026 under Sections 85/79/351(2) of the BNS, 2023. However, the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. 5. Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.2 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the FIR dated 24.01.2026, which was lodged due to matrimonial discord, misunderstanding, and momentary marital friction between the husband and wife, and that no offence, as alleged, is made out. He further submits that petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 are legally wedded spouses and out of the wedlock, they have four major children. Mr. Tara also submits that the parties have lived together for more than 25 years and with the intervention of family members, relatives, and their adult children, the parties have amicably settled their disputes and executed a settlement agreement vide Deed of Agreement dated 28.04.2026. Pursuant thereto, they have agreed to resume cohabitation, forgive all past grievances, and maintain peaceful matrimonial relations. Pursuant thereto, they have agreed to resume cohabitation, forgive all past grievances, and maintain peaceful matrimonial relations. It is also submitted that both the petitioners have no grievance against each other and they no longer wish to pursue the case any further. 6. Learned counsel submits that the continuation of the present criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, as the substratum of the dispute no longer survives. It is submitted that the continuation of trial in a purely private and matrimonial dispute would serve no fruitful purpose and would only result in unnecessary hardship and prejudice to the parties, particularly petitioner No.2. It is further submitted that in view of the settled position of law that matrimonial disputes which have been amicably resolved between the parties can be quashed to secure the ends of justice, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 and quash the FIR No. 05/2025 dated 24.01.2026 registered at Itanagar Women Police Station, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 7. Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that since the matter is between the wife and the husband and the dispute has been mutually settled between the parties, considering the harmony life and welfare of their children and as the informant and the victim have expressed that they have no further grievance against the accused petitioner No. 2 (husband) and does not want to pursue the matter any further, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners quashing the proceedings of the case is allowed. 8. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and has also gone through the materials placed before this Court. 9. On the agreement of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court has decided to dispose of the matter at the motion stage itself without calling for the Trial Court Records (TCR). 10. It is submitted that both the petitioners have already amicably settled the matter by executing a Deed of Agreement dated 28.04.2026, wherein it has been clearly recorded that the dispute between the parties have been resolved. It is further agreed between the parties that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. Both parties have undertaken to maintain peace and harmony henceforth. 11. It is further agreed between the parties that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. Both parties have undertaken to maintain peace and harmony henceforth. 11. In view of the aforesaid settlement of the matter and considering that the offence alleged to have been committed is not a major offence or a heinous crime having a serious impact on society, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is one where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 can be invoked, as the chances of conviction are far too bleak and remote and the continuance of such proceedings in the present case would be futile and an abuse of the process of law. 12. The law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the parties under Section 528 of the BNSS has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors ., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 . The paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment, being relevant, is extracted 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. 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 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. 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.” 13. In view of the aforesaid settlement of the dispute and considering that the offence alleged to have been committed is not a major offence or a heinous crime having a serious impact on society, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is one where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 can be invoked, as the chances of conviction are far too bleak and remote and the continuance of such proceedings in the present case would be futile and an abuse of the process of law. 14. Having regard to the facts and considering that the petitioners have filed this petition jointly after amicably settling the disputes between the husband and wife, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would only cause harassment to the parties, which would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Further, taking into account the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases of Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra) , this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant case is one where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS could be invoked. Consequently, the proceedings in the FIR dated 24.01.2026, registered as Itanagar Women P.S. Case No.05/2026, corresponding to GR Case No.63/2026, registered under Sections 85/79/351(2) of BNS, 2023, are hereby quashed and set aside. 15. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed.