Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040010242026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./176/2026 Tagru Tame and Anr Son of Shri Tagru Tajak, permanent residnet of Village Magnia, PO Tali, PS Tali, Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Hamam Bai Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Haman Tapak permanent eidnet of Village Sojam PO Tali PS Tali Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Kago Taja, Kirmar Ado,K Tagyang Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 23.07.2026 Heard Mr. Kirmar Ado, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, has been jointly filed by the accused person and the Page No.# 2/5 informant, praying for quashing and setting aside of G.R. No. 102/2023, charge- sheet No. 03/2023, dated 14.04.2023, arising out of Niti Vihar P.S. Case No. 04/2023 registered u/s. 325/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending trial in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 3. The case of the petitioners is that based on a written First Information Report(FIR) lodged by the informant/petitioner No. 2 viz. Shri Hamam Bhai before the Officer-in-Charge, Niti Vihar Police Station, on 07.02.2023, against the accused/petitioner No. 1, alleging, assault and attempt to murder with sharp weapon on the petitioner No. 2, thereby, resulting in grievous injuries; the aforesaid police case has been registered. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted Charge Sheet No. 13/2023 dated 14.04.2023, against the petitioner No. 1 for commission of the alleged offence. The learned Magistrate, Yupia, took cognizance of the case and now, the same is pending at the stage of evidence in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the case, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute by executing a deed of settlement agreement dated 01.07.2026, whereby, the informant/petitioner No. 2 has categorically stated that to ensure peaceful co-existence and to live in harmony towards each other, they have undertaken not to intimidate each other and also to speak ill of each other and shall maintain mutual respect for each other. Further, the parties have also agreed to cooperate and take steps for quashing of the present case pending against the petitioner No. 1. Since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties for maintaining peaceful co-existence, the informant/petitioner No. 2 does not have any further grievance against the accused/petitioner No. 1, therefore, he does not wish to pursue the matter any further. Page No.# 3/5 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that under the circumstances, there is no scope of conviction in the matter even if the trial of the case is allowed to be proceeded with, rather, it would be a futile exercise causing unnecessary harassment to all the parties which would amount to an abuse of process. Thus, by way of filing the present criminal petition before this Court, the petitioners have jointly prayed for quashing and setting aside of the proceedings of G.R. No. 102/2023, charge-sheet No. 03/2023, dated 14.04.2023, arising out of Niti Vihar P.S. Case No. 04/2023 registered u/s. 325/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending trial in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, fairly submits that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties as well as the fact that the informant/petitioner No. 2 has no further grievance against the accused/petitioner No. 1, and do not wish to pursue with the matter any further; she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 7. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the record. 8. The present case arises out of a written First Information Report (FIR) dated 07.02.2023, lodged by the informant/petitioner No. 2 before the Officer-in- charge, Niti Vihar Police Station against the accused/petitioner No. 1, alleging assault and attempt to murder with a sharp weapon on the petitioner No. 2, causing grievous injuries and resulting in the registration of the aforesaid police case and subsequent filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner No. 1. However, during the pendency of the trial, both the parties have amicably settled the matter and reduced the same into writing by way of executing a deed of Page No.# 4/5 agreement dated 01.07.2026. In the said deed of settlement, it has been categorically stated that the informant/petitioner No. 2 has categorically stated that the said First Information Report(FIR) was lodged by him due to some misunderstanding regarding footpath boundary dispute issue but now, he has no further grievance against the accused/petitioner No. 1, and do not wish to pursue the case any further. In view of the above, the dispute, in question, appears to be personal in nature and does not affect the society at large. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to have been only a remote possibility of conviction in the case. In view of the above, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused/petitioner No. 1 would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of inherent power conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can quash the criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do no have serious impact on society on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender. 10. In the light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, as well as in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra), wherein the Court has permitted quashing of the proceedings even in non-compoundable offence in cases involved in private disputes which do not affect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. Page No.# 5/5 11. Accordingly, the proceedings in GG.R. No. 102/2023, charge-sheet No. 03/2023, dated 14.04.2023, arising out of Niti Vihar P.S. Case No. 04/2023 registered u/s. 325/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending trial in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, against the petitioner No. 1, namely, Shri Tagru Tame, is hereby quashed. 12. In terms of the above, the instant joint petition filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant