Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040015662026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./301/2026 Nabam Talar and 2 Ors Son of Shri Nabam Topu, a permanent resident of Sopo Village, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Nabam Yajo Tana Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Tana Singkam a permanent resident of Sopo Village PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Nabam Tayeng Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nabam Saha a permanent resident of Village Sangri PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Tam Abo, Chera Natung,Moses Tangzang,Nabam Roma,Bengia Arun,Nabam Khoda Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, -BEFORE- Page No.# 2/7 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 18.09.2026 Heard Mr. T. Abo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP for the State. 2. The instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed jointly by the petitioners praying for quashing of the FIR No.97/2025 dated 18.07.2025 and the charge sheet No. 66/2025 dated 10.09.2025 and all consequential proceedings in G.R. Case No. 608/2025 against the petitioner No. 3, namely, Nabam Tayeng pending before the learned JMFC, Yupia, District Papum pare. 3. The gist of the case is that the petitioner No. 1 is the complainant/informant in connection with Doimukh P.S. Case No. 97/2025 under Section 281/125(b) of BNS, 2023. The petitioner No. 2 is the victim injured person and the petitioner No. 3 is the accused driver in the instant case. On 18.07.2025 at about 1000 hours, an unfortunate road accident occurred near Amba Village, Doimukh involving a Maruti Suzuki Celerio bearing registration No. AR-02-4078 driven by the petitioner No. 3. Due to the aforesaid accident, the petitioner No. 1, the younger brother of the victim/ petitioner No. 2 had lodged a complaint before the Doimukh Police Station. Accordingly, on the basis of the FIR, the aforesaid Doimukh P.S. Case No. 97/2025 was registered against the petitioner No. 3 under the aforementioned sections. Page No.# 3/7 4. Pursuant to the FIR, investigation was carried out and the charge sheet has been filed before the learned JMFC, Yupia against the petitioner No. 3. The matter is pending before the learned JMFC, Yupia pending for consideration of charge. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners and complainant’s side as well as the accused belonged to the same clan. The unfortunate road accident happened not due to any rash and negligence by him but due to certain mechanical defect of the vehicle that occurred at that point of time. He submits that the petitioner No. 3 had taken the petitioner No. 2/ the victim to the Community Health Centre at Doimukh for immediate medical treatment and once the victim was referred to TRIHMS, Naharlagun for further treatment, the petitioner No. 3 has taken all care and expenses for treatment of the victim i.e. the petitioner No. 2. Though, an FIR has been filed at that point of time, later on the families of the petitioner No. 3 and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, since they all belong to the same clan and village, had discussed about the matter and amicably settled the matter. They agreed that the petitioner No. 3 will bear all the expenses of the victim, i.e. petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 will cooperate with the petitioner No. 3 to close the issue and not to go ahead with proceeding pending before the learned JMFC, Yupia. He submits that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have executed a deed of settlement dated 26.07.2025 in presence of the family members and other clan members and agreed to settle the issue amicably to close the case by approaching the appropriate Court. It was also agreed that the petitioner No. 1/ the informant shall withdraw the FIR lodged before Page No.# 4/7 the Doimukh Police Station against the petitioner No. 3. The learned counsel has also submitted that victim girl has fully recovered and all the expenses have been borne by the petitioner No. 3. 6. In view of the aforesaid, since the petitioner No. 2/ the victim girl has already recovered and both the families of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are living peacefully in the same village, there is no reason for taking ahead the proceeding G. R. Case No. 608/2025 pending before the learned JMFC, Yupia, which shall be against the interest of all. 7. Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP submits that since the victim girl is recovered and since all the expenses have been borne by the petitioner No. 3,i.e., the accused person, she also does not have any objection, if the prayers of the petitioners is allowed as the matter has already been settled amongst the parties. 8. Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also of the fact that the offence is not of a heinous crime or major offence but the victim girl got injured due to an unfortunate accident happened for certain mechanical defect and there is no allegation of rash and negligence in driving, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant criminal petition can be closed and allowed, which will do justice to the parties. 9. The law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings in non- compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the parties Page No.# 5/7 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 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 Page No.# 6/7 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 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 among the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 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 Page No.# 7/7 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. Consequently, FIR dated 18.07.2025 registered as Doimukh P.S. Case No. 97/2025 corresponding to GR Case No. 608/2025 under Section 281/125 (b) along with the proceeding before the JMFC, Yupia is hereby quashed. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Digitally signed by Talom Tali Date: 2026.09.18 13:57:19 +05'30'