Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040013442026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./247/2026 Taniram Mingki and Anr Son of Late Tatok Mingki, resident of Sika Tode Village, PO and PS Sille Oyan, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Oder Gao Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Tayeng Gao a permanent resident of Rumgong Village PO and PS Rumgong East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Jumgam Jini, Mousmi Jini,Topuk Gocham,Gyamar Jeevan,Taying Nega,Binter Picha Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Tao Tarin Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 26.08.2026 Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed jointly by the informant/victim and the accused, praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR dated 20.11.2017, registered as Pasighat P.S. Case No. 225/17, under Sections 448/354-D/325/493 of the IPC, and the subsequent charge-sheet being C.S. No. 116/2018 dated 02.05.2018, under Sections 448/323/493 of the IPC, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 223/17, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the accused/husband of petitioner No. 2, and petitioner No. 2 is the informant/victim/wife of petitioner No. 1 in the aforesaid case arising out of Pasighat P.S. Case No. 225/17. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the informant/victim/petitioner No. 2 lodged an FIR alleging that the accused/petitioner No. 1 had entered her residence, stalked her, and assaulted her during a personal dispute arising out of their relationship. Accordingly, on receipt of the FIR from petitioner No. 2, the Officer-in-Charge, Pasighat, registered Pasighat P.S. Case No. 225/17 under Sections 448/354-D/325/493 of the IPC, and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet being C.S. No. 116/2018 dated 02.05.2018, under Sections Page No.# 3/5 448/323/493 of the IPC, was submitted, and the matter is now pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. 5. Mr. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that both the petitioners are husband and wife, and that the FIR was lodged due to a minor altercation between the parties, which resulted in petitioner No. 2 temporarily losing consciousness. During the pendency of the trial, the matter has been amicably resolved between them, and they have executed a Settlement Agreement dated 30.04.2025 (registered on 14.03.2026). He further submits that petitioner No. 1 (accused) and petitioner No. 2 (informant) have expressed that they are not willing to proceed with the matter any further, as the incident arose out of a personal dispute between the parties. Further, petitioner No. 2 has no grievance against the accused/petitioner No. 1 and does not wish to pursue the matter any further. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the matter has been amicably settled and there is no likelihood of conviction, the proceedings against petitioner No. 1 may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS. 7. Ms. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and considering that the incident allegedly occurred due to a personal dispute between the husband and wife, and that the informant/petitioner No. 2 has no further grievance and does not wish to pursue the matter, she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Page No.# 4/5 Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 9. The present case arose out of marital discord between the informant and her husband/petitioner No. 1, arising from allegations of assault during a personal dispute between the parties. During the pendency of the trial, the matter has been amicably settled by execution of the Settlement Agreement dated 30.04.2025 (registered on 14.03.2026) between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 now has no grievance against the accused/petitioner No. 1 and does not wish to pursue the case further. The dispute appears to be personal in nature and does not affect society at large. Given the facts and circumstances, there is only a remote possibility of conviction. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, continuation of the criminal proceedings would, therefore, be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of power under 482 of the Code can quashed the criminal proceeding even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society on the ground that there is settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender. 11. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in[(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in[(2014) 6 SCC 466], as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (supra), where the Apex Court has permitted quashing of proceedings even in non-compoundable offence in cases involved in private disputes which do not affect the society at large, this Court is Page No.# 5/5 of the opinion that this is a fit case, where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 12. 12. Accordingly, the proceedings arising out of G.R. Case No. 223/2017, arising from Pasighat P.S. Case No. 225/17, under Sections 448/354-D/325/493 of the IPC, as well as the subsequent charge-sheet being C.S. No. 116/2018 dated 02.05.2018, registered under Sections 448/323/493 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, and any other proceedings arising out of the same case, if any, against the accused, namely, Shri Taniram Mingki (petitioner No. 1), are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 13. With the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Sabnam Mepo (SPA)