Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040015672026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./302/2026 Prem Yangfo and Anr Son of Shri Apo Yangfo, resident of Type-II Colony, Seppa, PO and PS Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Limo Nguri Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Kili Nguri permanent resident of Nguri Village PO and PS Raga Kamle District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Taya Don, Larje Soki,Himat Richo Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 18.09.2026 Heard Mr. T. Don, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP for the State. Page No.# 2/6 2. The instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed jointly by the petitioners praying for quashing of the FIR, charge sheet and criminal proceeding in connection with Seppa P.S. Case No. 23/2026 under Section 305/238 (c) of BNS, 2023 G.R. No.31/2026 pending before the learned CJM, Seppa. 3. The gist of the case is that the petitioner No. 1 is the victim/ informant and the petitioner No. 2 is alleged accused in connection with Seppa P.S. Case No. 23/2026 registered under Section 305/238 (c) of BNS. 4. On 16.02.2026, an FIR was lodged before the Seppa Police Station by one Prem Yangfo (petitioner No. 1) against unknown accused person alleging that some unknown person has stolen his mobile and DBR Box from his Anthinia Salon belonged to him on the night of 15.06.2026. 5. On the basis of the FIR, police after investigation traced the Mobile Phone which was being used by Smti. Meena Langdo Taku, who stated that she bought the same from petitioner No. 2, namely, Shri Limo Nguri. The Police recovered the Mobile Phone from the possession of the aforesaid MS. Meena Langdo Taku. After investigation, Police submitted the charge sheet in the instant case under Section 305/238 (c) of BNS against the petitioner No. 2. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Page No.# 3/6 petitioner No. 2 has in fact not stolen the mobile phone and the same was found while taking a morning walk near the salon. Since he had other phones, he had sold the phone to the aforesaid Smti. Meena Langdo Taku. The learned counsel submits that after the incident, since the mobile has been recovered and realizing the mistake, the petitioner No. 1 has mistakenly alleged the petitioner No. 2 and since both the parties have compromised between themselves about the case, agreed to close the case if permissible by law. Accordingly, they executed a deed of settlement on 28.08.2026 in presence of the family members of both the accused person as well as the informant, i.e., the petitioner No. 1 agreeing to settle the matter amicably and to close the whole issue. 7. Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP submits that she does not have any objection since the Mobile Phone has been recovered and the issue has been settled between the parties. 8. Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant criminal petition can be allowed by quashing the proceeding pending before the CJM, Seppa. 9. The law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings in non- compoundable offences 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 & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. The paragraph 15 of Page No.# 4/6 the aforesaid judgment, being relevant, is extracted herein below:- “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 Page No.# 5/6 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 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.” 10. Having regard to the facts and considering that the dispute between the petitioner Nos. 1, & 2 are primarily of private in nature and as stated above, the parties have already come to a mutual agreement by settling their whole differences by executing a Deed of Settlement and also taking into account the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (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 could be invoked. Page No.# 6/6 Consequently, the Seppa P.S. Case No. 23/2026 corresponding to GR Case No. 31/2026 under Section 305/238(c) along with the proceeding before the CJM, Seppa is hereby quashed. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Digitally signed by Talom Tali Date: 2026.09.18 14:01:44 +05'30'