Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040015542026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./299/2026 Tarh Takap and 2 Ors Son of Tarh Tamang, resident of Damsite, Naharlagun, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tadar Tatuk Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tadar Lotak resident of Dokioso Colony gohpur PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Smti Alina Jomo Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Jomo Takam resident of A Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Tadar Tayum, Tapi Jamoh,Geni Kirkom,Rimo Riba Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. R. Riba, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State. 2. This is an application filed jointly by the petitioners, under Section 528 of BNS, praying for quashing and setting aside of the FIR No. 0102 dated 30.08.2024 against NLG P.S. Case No. 102/2024, registered under Sections 74/79/3/3(5) of BNS, and charge sheet No. 129/2024 dated 10.09.2026, and the charges framed on dated 10.08.2026, against the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2. 3. It is submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are self employed individuals who support their families by driving auto-rickshaw in and around Naharlagun town. On 29.08.2024, at around 18:45 hours, both the accused persons went to Naharlagun to drop off a passenger. While returning, they found 4–5 girls walking on the middle of the colony road and when they honked to ask the girls to move away, one of the girl (victim) did not step aside properly. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the co- driver of the auto-rickshaw (Shri Tadar Tatuk) tapped her on the shoulder indicating her to move aside. It is stated that the victim misunderstood the gesture and lodged an FIR before the Naharlagun Police Station, alleging that she was sexually abused and the accused pressed her chest. Accordingly, NLG P.S. Case No. 0102/2024 against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was registered. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no incident as alleged in the FIR has occurred during that period, and due to certain misunderstanding by the victim girl, the FIR came to be lodged. He submits that after the FIR was lodged and the charge-sheet was filed, the families of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, as well as the victim girl, sat together and agreed to settle the issue Page No.# 3/6 amicably as the FIR was lodged due to a misunderstanding by the victim girl. He submits that pursuant to the aforesaid meeting between the families and the petitioners, a Deed of Settlement was executed between the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and petitioner No. 3. He submits that vide the Deed of Settlement, the petitioner No. 3 has agreed to amicably settle the issue and stated that she does not have any grievance against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, and that the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstandings. It is also stated in the agreement that the petitioner No. 3 undertakes and assures that she will help petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to close the proceedings pending before the trial court, and help petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to approach the High Court to get the proceedings quashed. In view of the above facts, he submits that the instant criminal petition should be allowed by quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings in the instant case. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. submits that since the parties have amicably settled the matter and are living peacefully, and the offenses cannot be termed as heinous offenses, he doesn't have any objections if the proceeding involved is quashed. 6. This court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 7. In view of the aforesaid settlement of the matter and considering the offense alleged to have been committed is not a major offense or a heinous crime having a serious impact on the 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. 8. 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 Page No.# 4/6 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: - “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 Page No.# 5/6 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 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.” 9. Having regard to the facts and considering that the dispute between the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 with petitioner No. 3 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, 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. 10. Consequently, the FIR No. 0102 dated 30.08.2024 against NLG P.S. Case No. 102/2024, registered under Sections 74/79/3/3(5) of BNS, and charge sheet No. 129/2024 dated 10.09.2026, and the charges framed on dated 10.08.2026, against Page No.# 6/6 the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2, is hereby quashed. 11. In terms of the aforesaid, the instant criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Miriam Degu (SPA)