Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040013892026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./253/2026 Smti Minu Koyu Wife of Shri Zeetu Koyu, presently residing at Senki Park, Itanagar, PO RK Mission, PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Zeetu Koyu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Taji Koyu and presently residing at Senki Park Itanagar PO RK Mission PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Niabin Soki, Terjum Nima Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 28.08.2026 Heard Ms. Biblee Marde, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Token Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been jointly filed by the informant-wife/petitioner No. 1 and the accused-husband/petitioner No. 2, praying for quashing and setting aside of the criminal proceedings in G.R. No. 682/2024 arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Page No.# 2/5 Case No. 31/2024 registered under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 3. The brief facts of the case is that based on a written First Information Report(FIR) lodged by the petitioner No. 1/wife of the petitioner No. 2, before the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Women Police Station, on 24.06.2024, against her husband/petitioner No. 2, alleging, therein, that though she is in a marital relationship with the petitioner No. 2 since the year 2018, however, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, he has been physically and mentally torturing her for the last many years, the aforementioned police case was registered. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted Charge Sheet No. 63/2024 dated 31.07.2024 against the accused/petitioner No. 2 for commission of the alleged offence. The learned Magistrate, Yupia, took cognizance of the case and now, the same is pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, at the stage of appearance. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant/ petitioner No. 1, and the accused/petitioner No. 2 being wife and husband, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and accordingly, a formal deed of mutual settlement agreement was executed between the parties on 10.08.2026, wherein, it is categorically stated that the incident occurred between them due to some family misunderstanding and now, they are living together happily with their 7(seven) years old minor child and, since the matter has already been amicably settled between them, the informant/petitioner No. 1 has categorically stated that she has no further grievance against the accused- husband/petitioner No. 2, and she does not wish to pursue the matter any further. Page No.# 3/5 5. In order to ascertain the veracity of the deed of mutual settlement, by order dated 24.08.2026, this Court summoned the informant/ petitioner No. 1 to appear on 28.08.2026. In compliance of the said directions passed by this Court, the informant/petitioner No. 1 appeared before the Court today and stated that the incident occurred due to some misunderstanding with her accused-husband/ petitioner No. 2, however, now, they are living together happily with their minor child. The informant further stated that since she has no further grievance against her husband/petitioner No. 2, she does not wish to pursue the matter any further and requested to close the matter. 6. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that since the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and the informant/petitioner No. 1 has no further grievance against the accused/petitioner No. 2, there is no scope of conviction in the case and under the circumstances, the further proceeding of the case would be a futile exercise and it would only cause harassment to the parties and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing and setting aside of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 31/2024 as well as the proceedings in G.R. No. 682/2024 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that as the matter has amicably been settled between the informant and the accused being wife and husband, and the allegations in the First Information Report(FIR) itself indicates that the dispute arose out of a matrimonial dispute between them, and also taking into account that a formal deed of settlement, dated 10.08.2026, has been executed between the parties, wherein, the informant/wife has stated that she has no further grievance against the accused/husband and does not wish to pursue with the matter any further, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. Page No.# 4/5 8. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties. 9. It appears that the dispute arose between the wife/petitioner No. 1 and the husband/petitioner No. 2 when the accused-husband alleged to have physically and mentally tortured her, because of which, there has been a marital discord between them resulting in lodging of the aforesaid police case by the petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner No. 2. However, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties by formally executing a mutual deed of settlement agreement on 10.08.2026, wherein, the informant has clearly expressed that the aforesaid police case has been lodged by her due to some misunderstanding with her husband/petitioner No. 2 and now, she has no further grievance against the accused/petitioner No. 2 and she does not wish to pursue the matter any further. Under the circumstances, it appears that the dispute is purely personal in nature and has arisen out of a marital discord between the informant/petitioner No. 1 and the accused-husband/petitioner No. 2. It also appears that the dispute 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 and thus, if the proceeding is allowed to be continued; it would only cause harassment to the parties which would rather amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. 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. Page No.# 5/5 11. 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. 12. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 682/2024 arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 31/2024 registered under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, pending trial in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, against the petitioner No. 2 Shri Zeetu Koyu, is hereby quashed. 13. 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