Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040001042026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./12/2026 Binom Lego (Ligo) and Anr Son of Shri Ning Lego, Adi Tribe, resident of H. No. E 15, Luyigite / Boleng Village, PO Roing, PS Santipur, Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Osiri Tasung Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Rijo Riba resident of Lekhi Village PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Par District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP through the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Morrik Bagra, Tadar Rar,Debo Mangkhya Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 21.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. Ngomdir, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Page No.# 2/6 Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 by the petitioners jointly for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of WPS Case No. 81/2019, registered under Sections 354(D)/500/509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 05.10.2019 by petitioner No. 2 against petitioner No. 1, alleging that petitioner No. 1 had been publishing certain defamatory materials against her on social media platforms, including Facebook and Messenger. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 had been abusing petitioner No. 2 by referring to her as a prostitute who sells her body to non-tribals in Guwahati. It was further alleged that such posts had caused mental distress to petitioner No. 2 and adversely affected her day-to-day life. In view of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered WPS Case No. 81/2019 under Sections 354(D)/500/509 IPC. 4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted Charge- Sheet No. 55/2021 dated 30.03.2021. The matter is presently pending before the learned JMFC, Yupia, for evidence, and it is stated that charges have already been framed against the accused person in the instant case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have amicably settled their disputes outside the Court with the Page No.# 3/6 intervention of their respective family members. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 has realised his mistake and tendered an apology to petitioner No. 2, and the petitioner no. 2 agreed to forgive him for the alleged activities committed by the Petitioner no. 1 6. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of the settlement, both parties desire to live peacefully and put an end to their disputes. Petitioner No. 2, being the informant, has agreed not to pursue the criminal proceedings pending before the learned JMFC, Yupia. 7. It is submitted that, pursuant to the settlement, both petitioners have executed a Deed of Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 19.01.2026, whereby they have agreed to resolve all their disputes. Under the terms of the said agreement, petitioner No. 2 has also agreed to extend her support and cooperation to petitioner No. 1 in filing the necessary application before the appropriate Court for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him in the learned JMFC, Yupia. 8. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the State, submits that, as the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the offences involved are not heinous in nature, the instant criminal petition may be allowed by quashing the proceedings pending before the learned JMFC, Yupia. 9. Taking into account, the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the TCR, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant case is one wherein the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS can be invoked to secure the ends of justice by quashing the criminal Page No.# 4/6 proceedings pending before the learned JMFC, Yupia. 10. 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 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, Page No.# 5/6 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; 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 Page No.# 6/6 the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 is primarily of private 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. Consequently, FIR dated 05.10.2019 registered as Itanagar WPS Case No. 81/2019, under Section 354(D)/500/509 I.P.C. corresponding to GR case no. 712/2019 pending before the JMFC, Yupia is hereby quashed. 12. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant