Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040014482026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./266/2026 Taba Tahang and 3 Ors Son of Late Taba Pacha, Village Depra Jote Panchayat, PO and PS Balijan, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Taba Tatung Age: Occupation : Son of Taba Karu a permanent resident of Village Depra Jote Panchayat PO and PS Balijan Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Miss Techi Yamar Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Techi Lazi a permanent resident of Village Rakap PO and PS Balijan Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Smti Techi Yayum @ Yauam Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Techi Legi a permanent resident of Village Rakap PO and PS Balijan Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : Pramod Kr. Gour, Chello Nacho Sangshu,S Bayor Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 07.09.2026 Heard Mr. C. N. Sangshu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, 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 petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 (the accused), petitioner No. 3 (the informant/victim), and petitioner No. 4 (the victim), praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of Balijan P.S. Case No. 05/2009 and G.R. Case No. 58/2009 [wrongly mentioned as 005/2009 in the order dated 13.08.2026], registered under Sections 342/451/427/354/506/453/34 of the IPC. 3. Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the accused; petitioner No. 3 is the informant/victim; and petitioner No. 4 is the victim in the aforesaid case arising out of Balijan P.S. Case No. 05/2009. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the informant/petitioner No. 3 lodged a written FIR on 19.03.2009 before the Officer-in- Charge, Balijan, against petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. Accordingly, the aforesaid Police Station case was registered and investigated. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted on 28.11.2009 against accused/petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. After taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate framed charges against accused/petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 for offences punishable under Sections 456/451/354/342/34 of IPC, and the matter is now pending before the Court of the Page No.# 3/5 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia-III. 5. Mr. Sangshu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties, and they have executed a Deed of Settlement dated 02.09.2026. He further submits that petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 (accused), petitioner No. 3 (informant/victim), and petitioner No. 4 (victim) have expressed that they are not willing to proceed with the matter any further, as the incident arose due to a misunderstanding between the parties. Further, petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 has no grievance against petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and do not wish to pursue the matter any further. 6. He also submits that the settlement between the parties has been brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court. However, since the offences alleged against the accused are non-compoundable, the present petition has been filed. 7. He further submits that the offences under Sections 451/342/34 are compoundable in nature, whereas the offences under Sections 456 and 354 of the IPC are non-compoundable. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and there is no likelihood of conviction, the proceedings against petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS. 9. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and considering that the incident allegedly occurred due to some misunderstanding between the parties and that petitioner Nos. 3 & 4, the informant/victim and victim respectively, have no further grievance and do not wish to pursue the matter, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. Page No.# 4/5 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 11. The present case arose out of a misunderstanding between petitioner Nos. 1 & 2/accused; petitioner No. 3/informant/victim and petitioner No. 4/victim, pursuant to which petitioner No. 3 lodged the written FIR against accused/petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. The dispute has since been amicably resolved between the parties, and such settlement does not warrant continuation of the criminal proceedings. Further, petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 (informant/victim and victim, respectively) now has no grievance against accused/petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and do not wish to pursue the case. The dispute appears to be personal in nature, without affecting society at large. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be only a remote possibility of conviction. In view of the above, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 12. 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. 13. 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 of the opinion that this is a fit case, where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, should Page No.# 5/5 be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 14. Accordingly, the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 58/2009 [wrongly mentioned as 005/2009 in the order dated 13.08.2026], arising out of Balijan P.S. Case No. 05/2009 as well as the Charge-Sheet dated 28.11.2009, registered under Sections 456/451/354/342/34 of the IPC, against the accused, namely, (1) Shri Taba Tahang (petitioner No. 1) and (2) Shri Taba Tatung (petitioner No. 2), are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 15. With the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Sabnam Mepo (SPA)