Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040015392026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./296/2026 Nabam Takar Hina and Anr Son of Late Nabam Racho, permanent resident of Bobia Village, PO and PS Sagalee, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Neemita Chowhai Age: Occupation : Wife of Nabam Takar Hina permanent resident of Village Nampong PO and PS Namsai District Namsai Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Nabam Rama, Dindo Boni,Tacha Noma,N Kanu,N Kuma,Teshi Aaku,Techi Ita Tara Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 15.09.2026 Heard Mr. T. Ita Tara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State. Page No.# 2/5 2. The instant application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners jointly, praying for quashing of the FIR dated 09.12.2022, registered as Itanagar WPS Case No. 155/2022, under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC, and also quashing of the GR No. 1000/2022. 3. The brief facts of the case are that there was a matrimonial dispute between the husband (the petitioner No. 1), and the wife (petitioner No. 2). On the night of 7th December, 2022, a heated argument took place between the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 regarding ill-treatment of the ailing father of the husband by the wife. It is stated that during such argument, the petitioner No. 1, the husband, physically assaulted the wife, petitioner No. 2, whereby the wife fell down and sustained certain injuries. 4. Following the incident, the wife, petitioner No. 2, had filed the FIR before the Women Police Station, Itanagar against the petitioner No. 1, pursuant to which, Itanagar WPS Case No. 155/2022, under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC was registered. 5. After due investigation by the police, a charge-sheet has also been filed in the instant case. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 2 had filed the FIR in the heat of the moment without thinking about the consequences thereof. He submits that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, being husband and wife, have amicably settled their differences and have been living together as husband and wife with their two children and other family members. He submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have also executed a Deed of Settlement dated 02.08.2026, wherein they have decided to end all their disputes and settled the matter amicably in front of their respective families. He further submits that the petitioner No. 2 shall not have any grievances if the FIR as well as proceedings under the case are set aside and quashed. He submits that since the matter relates Page No.# 3/5 to a matrimonial issue and is of private nature without having any implications on the society at large, the instant petition should be allowed by quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet. 7. Ms. T. Jini, the learned Addl. PP, has fairly submitted that since the matter relates to a matrimonial issue and the husband and wife have settled their issues and are staying peacefully, the continuation of the proceedings in the FIR shall not be in the good interest of the petitioners as well as their children. 8. It is seen that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have already settled the issue by entering into a Deed of Settlement dated 02.08.2026, wherein they have compromised the whole issue and have decided to end the whole dispute and stay together. It is also stated in the agreement that the FIR was filed due to certain misunderstandings, and the wife, i.e., the petitioner No. 2, does not have any objection if the FIR and subsequent charge-sheet are quashed by the competent court. 9. In view of the aforesaid settlement of the matter and considering that the offense alleged to have been committed is not a major offense or heinous crime having serious impact on society, this court is of the considered opinion that the present case is one where inherent powers of this court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 can be invoked, as the chances of conviction are far too bleak and remote, and the continuance of such proceeding, as in the present case, would be futile and an abuse of the process of law. 10. The law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offenses on the basis of compromise between the parties under Section 528 of the BNSS has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: - Page No.# 4/5 “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is Page No.# 5/5 filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” 11. Having regard to the facts and considering that the dispute between the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is primarily of private nature, and as the parties have already come to a mutual agreement by settling their whole differences by executing the Deed of Settlement dated 02.08.2026, and also taking into account the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan and Others (supra), this court is of the considered opinion that the instant case is one where the inherent powers of this court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 could be invoked. 12. Consequently, the FIR registered as Itanagar WPS Case No. 155/2022, under Section 498(A)/323 IPC and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. 13. In terms of the aforesaid, the instant criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant