Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040015962026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./309/2026 Smti Merrnya Libang and Anr Wife of Shri Tati Gao, resident of SS Mission Road, PO and PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Osi Darang @ Yanky Darang Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Tati Gao resident of SS Mission Road PO and PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Tagum Jamoh, Jobang Modi,N Doji,Keten Tabang Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 23.09.2026 Heard Mr. T. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/7 2. The instant application has been filed jointly by the petitioners under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 praying for setting aside and quashing of Pasighat P.S. Case No.32/2014, charge sheet No.23/2015 dated 31.03.2015, cognizance order dated 29.06.2026 as well as the entire consequential criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.32/2014 under Section 447/326/354 IPC, pending before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Siang District, Pasighat. 3. The facts of the case leading to filing of the instant criminal petition is that the petitioner No.1 is the second wife of one Shri Tati Gao whereas, the petitioner No.2 is the first wife of aforesaid Shri Tati Gao. On 28.03.2014, the petitioner No.1, who is the second wife of the aforesaid Shri Tati Gao, lodged an FIR before the Pasighat police station alleging that about 9:30 am, on the very date, she had been assaulted and her modesty has been outraged by petitioner No.2 i.e., the first wife of aforesaid Shri Tati Gao, who is also her husband. On the basis of the FIR, the police registered Pasighat P.S. Case No.32/2014 initially under Section 447/325/354/34 IPC. After the completion of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet No. 23/2015 dated 31.03.2015 against the petitioner No.2 under Section 447/326/354 IPC. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that alleged incident occurred way back in 2014 and nothing substantial happened in the trial till date. He submits that the trial court on 09.07.2026 has issued summon to the petitioner No.2 i.e., the accused in the instant case. He submits that the long delay is one of the factors this Court should consider while hearing the instant application. He further submits that the issue Page No.# 3/7 which went to the court basically relates to the family discord as the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 are wives of one Shri Tati Gao. He submits that when the aforesaid Shri Tati Gao married the second wife, the first wife i.e., the petitioner No.2 got enraged thereby, assaulted the petitioner No.1. He submits that though there were certain injuries to petitioner No.1, she had recovered long time back and at present, both the wives are staying peacefully as a whole family. He further submits that both the wives have children and all the family members are staying peacefully together presently. 5. He submits that since the occurrence happened almost 12 years back, no purpose will be served if the proceeding before the trial court is allowed to go ahead, at this stage. He submits that the parties have amicably settled the matter and in terms of the settlement, the petitioners have also executed a deed of amicable settlement on 15.09.2026 wherein, both the parties have agreed that they have settled their issue long time back and the petitioner No.1 does not have any grievance against the petitioner No.2. In view of the aforesaid settlement and since the occurrence happened long time back and the trial has started only recently, the learned counsel submits that the joint prayer of the petitioners may be allowed. 6. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the petitioners have already settled their issue within themselves and occurrence happened long time back, he does not have any objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 7. It is seen that the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 are wives of Page No.# 4/7 one Shri Tati Gao and when the aforesaid Shri Tati Gao married the second wife i.e., the petitioner No.1, the petitioner No.2, his first wife got enraged and due to that she assaulted the petitioner No.1. It is also seen that the occurrence happened almost 12 years back and the trial has not proceeded substantially as yet as it is seen from the summon that has been issued to the accused person i.e., the petitioner No.2 only on 09.07.2026. Though the injuries caused to the petitioner No.1 were of grievous nature, the occurrence happened long time back and the petitioner No.1 (victim) has already recovered. It is also seen that at present, both the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 is staying together along with their husband and children. 8. In consideration of the facts narrated as well as the deed of amicable settlement executed by the petitioners on 15.09.2026, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioners should be allowed. 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 Page No.# 5/7 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 Page No.# 6/7 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 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. Page No.# 7/7 11. Accordingly, the G.R. Case No.32/2014 arising out of Pasighat P.S. Case No.32/2014 under section 447/326/354 IPC, pending before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Siang District, Pasighat, 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: 2026.09.23 17:03:24 +05'30'