Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040014782026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./276/2026 Hibung Tedik and Anr Son of Late Hibung Roi, permanent resident of Chiputa Village, PO and SP Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Tana Ania Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Hibung Tedik permanent resident of Village Sopo PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Nabam Rama, Ajay Magria,N Kuma,Techi Ita Tara,Thaddeus Techi,Teshi Aaku Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 21.09.2026 Heard Mr. T. Ita Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/6 2. This is an application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 filed by the petitioners jointly praying for quashing of G.R. Case No. 387/2022 arising out of Itanagar WPS Case No.58/2022, registered under Section 498(A)/323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. TCR in the instant case was called for and same is received. 4. An FIR was lodged by the petitioner No.2 (wife) against the petitioner No.1(husband) on 11.05.2022 before the Officer-In-charge Doimukh police station alleging that on 11.05.2022 in between 7:30 to 8:00 pm, her husband assaulted her physically, causing grievous injuries on her left eye and other parts of the body. It was alleged that her husband was having illicit relationship with other girls and since, she has protested about the issue, the husband had physically assaulted her. It was alleged that she somehow managed to escape from further assault in the instant case. 5. On the receipt of the FIR, the police registered ITA WPS Case No.58/2022, and after completion of the investigation, submitted a charge sheet No.44/2023, dated 22.05.2023 and it is seen that the matter is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia in the evidence stage. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are husband and wife and due to certain misunderstanding by the wife i.e., petitioner No.2, had filed the FIR and after realisation of the mistake, she on her repentance, agreed to settle the matter amicably and not to pursue with the case pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. The husband has also agreed to reform himself and not Page No.# 3/6 to behave in a manner as alleged in the FIR. It is also stated that the wife i.e., petitioner No.2 has already recovered from her simple injuries and both the husband and the wife are presently living peacefully. In terms of the understanding, the petitioners have also executed an agreement dated 18.08.2026 in presence of their family members and witnesses stating that both have settled the issue and since, the matter relates to husband and wife, the wife has agreed not to pursue with the case pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. He submits that both the petitioners are presently staying together happily as husband and wife and no purpose will be served if the proceeding is allowed to be taken ahead. Therefore, he prays that instant petition should be allowed by quashing the FIR as well as corresponding proceedings of G.R. Case No.387/2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 7. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the issue basically involves husband and wife in a marital dispute and since, the parties have already settled their dispute, this instant petition can be allowed by quashing the proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 8. Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for their respective parties and after perusal of the TCR that has been received, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant case involves the marital dispute between the parties wherein, in the heat of the moment, the husband has assaulted the wife. However, the wife, who received simple injuries has recovered and both the husband and the wife are staying together peacefully. It is also seen that the issue and the offences involved are not of any heinous crime or a major offence which Page No.# 4/6 will have impact on the society. Since, the issue involved is personal kind and without having any public impact, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition can be allowed by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. 9. 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: - “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 Page No.# 5/6 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 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; Page No.# 6/6 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 and 2 is primarily of private nature, and as the parties have already come to a mutual agreement by settling their dispute by executing a 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. 11. Accordingly, the G.R. Case No. 387/2022 arising out of Itanagar WPS Case No.58/2022, pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia, is hereby quashed. 12. In terms of the above, the instant criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by TAGE BUNYI Date: 2026.09.21 17:28:45 +05'30'