Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040012552026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./231/2026 Smti Laxmi Lamgu Dada and Anr Wife of Shri Papu Dada, Jejudada Village, Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Papu Dada Age: Occupation : on of Late Jaro Dada Jejudada Village Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, Honi Tana Tara Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 21.09.2026 Heard Mr. H. T. Tara, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Page No.# 2/7 Pradesh. 2. The instant application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed jointly by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 seeking quashing of the proceedings in WPS Case No. 04/2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 23/2025, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa. 3. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 09.04.2025 by petitioner No. 1 (wife) against petitioner No. 2 (husband), alleging that on 08.04.2025, at about 2:30 p.m., her husband physically assaulted her by hitting her with a blunt piece of wood and punching her multiple times, thereby causing injuries to various parts of her body. 4. It was further alleged that petitioner No. 1 had been subjected to physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her husband for several months on account of his alleged illicit relationship with one Ms. Seema Taba. It was also alleged that, on 17.12.2024, a mutual family agreement had been executed in the presence of family elders and witnesses, whereby petitioner No. 2 had agreed to end his illicit relationship with the said Ms. Seema Taba. However, despite the aforesaid agreement, he allegedly continued the said relationship. 5. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered WPS Case No. 04/2025 under the aforementioned sections. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet dated 06.07.2025 under Sections 85/74/115(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The case is presently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Page No.# 3/7 Seppa, for consideration of charges. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife and that, owing to certain misunderstandings between them, wife i.e, petitioner No. 1 had lodged the FIR against petitioner No. 2. It is submitted that, after the incident, both petitioners, along with their respective family members, sat together and decided to close the issue by way of settlement. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are presently residing together as husband and wife and that petitioner No. 2 has agreed to end his relationship with the other lady named in the FIR. In view of the aforesaid understanding, both the petitioners have executed a Deed of Agreement dated 27.07.2026, wherein they have agreed to amicably settle all their disputes and the Petitioner No. 2 has also agreed not to repeat the acts of assault allegedly committed against petitioner No. 1 on earlier occasions. 8. In view of the aforesaid understanding and the fact that the petitioners are presently residing together amicably, learned counsel submits that no dispute presently subsists between them and, therefore, the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, may be quashed. 9. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that since the petitioners are husband and wife and they have amicably settled their disputes, there is no point letting the proceedings before the Page No.# 4/7 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, to go on in the instant case. Therefore, he submits that he has no objection to the instant criminal petition being allowed. 10. The TCR received in the instant case has been perused. 11. Taking into account the 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, since the parties are husband and wife, who have jointly approached this Court for bringing to an end to their disputes, and have amicably settled their differences, the instant case warrants consideration for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and that the ends of justice would be served by quashing the proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, in connection with G.R. No. 23/2025. 12. 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: Page No.# 5/7 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 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 Page No.# 6/7 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.” 13. Having regard to the facts and considering that the dispute between 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 09.04.2025 registered as WPS Case No. 04/2025, under Sections 85/74/115(2)/351(2)/3(5) BNS, 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 23/2025, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Page No.# 7/7 Seppa is hereby quashed. 14. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant