Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040011492026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./212/2026 Tatar Mosi and 2 Ors Son of Late Tate Mosi, residing opposite to Monday Market, Jullang, Itanagar, PO and PS itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Datum Gadi Age: Occupation : Son of Late Bidya Gadi resident of Chandranagar Itanagar PO RK Mission PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Mikpu Gadi Age: Occupation : Son of Late Bimik Gadi resident of Chandranagar Itanagar PO RK Mission PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP through the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Puto Bui, Tsering Lhamu Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 11-08-2026 Heard Mr. P. Bui, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional P.P. Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the State. 2. The petitioners, herein, who are the accused, victim and the informant in Itanagar P.S. Case No. 116/2024, registered under Section 279/ 338 Indian Penal Code, have joined together to institute the present criminal petition, praying for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 695/2024 presently pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Yupia, on the ground of settlement being arrived between them. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is the accused, while the petitioner No. 2 is the victim. The petitioner No. 3, who is the informant had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station on 30-06-2024, inter-alia, alleging that the petitioner No. 2 was hit by a Fortuner car near the Bikaner Sweets and Bakery, Chandan Nagar. The offending vehicle was projected to have been fled away from the place of occurrence leaving his brother at the place. It was further projected that the petitioner No. 2 was referred to Trims for further treatment and was presently battling for life in the ICU. The police on receipt of the said FIR registered the same as Itanagar P.S. Case No. 116/2024 under Section 279/ 338 Indian Penal Code. Page No.# 3/8 4. On conclusion of the investigation in the matter, charge sheet was laid by the Investigating Officer before the court of JMFC, Yupia, against the petitioner No. 1 and the case is presently pending for consideration of charge framing. 5. The petitioners, herein, in the meanwhile on a mutual understanding being arrived by and between them, which was reduced in writing in the form of a Deed of Settlement Agreement dated 06-07-2026, settled the matter amicably. In the said deed of settlement agreement, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had also undertaken that they would not further process the matter and accordingly, agreed to have the FIR lodged in the matter quashed. 6. The provision of Section 279 IPC Code being not compoundable, the petitioners have instituted the present criminal petition. 7. The petitioners, in pursuance to the incident of the petitioner No. 1 hitting the petitioner No. 2 by his Fortuner car on 30-06-2024, had met together and upon discussion in the matter had decided to compromise the same and accordingly, a Deed of Settlement Agreement was executed by and between them on 06-07-2026. In terms of the Deed of Settlement arrived at, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had decided not to further process the criminal proceeding, instituted against the petitioner No. 1, herein, and also expressed their intent to quash the FIR in the matter. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 9. The issue arising in the present proceedings is as to whether this Court has the Page No.# 4/8 power, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non- compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at between parties. The said issue, was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or could there be laying down a rigid formula to be followed by the Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It was further held that it is well settled that these powers have no limit, of course, where there is more power; it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while exercising such powers. 10. The decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra) came to be doubted in the case Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, by a Division Bench and accordingly the matter was referred to a larger bench. The larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Gian Singh V. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra) was correctly decided and held as follows: “58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably Page No.# 5/8 or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed. 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have Page No.# 6/8 resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 11. Having considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the context of the power of this Court to quash proceedings involving noncompoundable Sections in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the issue involved in the present proceedings is hereby considered. 12. It is a settled law that the offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by a criminal Court in purported exercise of its powers conferred under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which is the exclusive domain of legislature. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Section 528 BNSS, 2023. This Court, keeping in view of the particular facts and circumstances of the case and for justifiable reasons can invoke the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Section 528 BNSS, 2023 in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. 13. This Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of offence and the fact that the Page No.# 7/8 parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Section 528 BNSS, 2023, even if the offences are noncompoundable. 14. This Court, can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. Criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature can be annulled irrespective of the stage the criminal proceedings are at. 15. Having noticed the powers available to this Court, under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Section 528 BNSS, 2023, the weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in the present proceedings, I am inclined to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Section 528 BNSS, 2023, and quash the criminal proceedings existing against the petitioner no. 1 for the following reasons: (1) Firstly, the offence as committed by the petitioner no. 1 being found to have been so committed without any premeditation and the petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3, having condoned such act on the part of the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 having also contended that they would no longer pursue the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner No. 1, no fruitful purpose would be served in the matter, in the event, the criminal proceeding is permitted to continue against the petitioner No. 1. Page No.# 8/8 (2) Secondly, after institution of the criminal proceeding, the petitioners having reconciled their differences and a projection having been made that such reconciliation, which has been reduced to writing in the form of deed of mutual settlement agreement dated 06-07-2026, being so made for co-existing in peace; such reconciliation not having been demonstrated to have been arrived at basing on any coercion of compulsion, the deed of settlement dated 06-07-2026, being one so entered into by the petitioners on their own volition, the conviction of the petitioner No. 1, being remote and bleak in the matter, the quashing of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceeding would not be against public interest. 16. In view of the conclusions reached herein above and having considered the offence involved in the matter and the reconciliation arrived at between the petitioners, this Court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./ Section 528 BNSS, 2023, interferes with the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia against the petitioner No. 1, consequently, the G.R. Case No. 695/2024, under Section 380 IPC along with the FIR dated 30-06-2024 and the charge sheet as filed, stands quashed. 16. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant