Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040015952026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./308/2026 Marba Bagra and Anr Son of Late Tomar Bagra, resident of Takpu Bagra, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Bakar Bagra Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Marba Bagra resident of Takpu Bagra PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Lissing Perme, A Perme,Toge Rolley,Natu Niji,Signal Yirang,Jumge Riram,Krishna Dubey Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 23.09.2026 Heard Mr. J. Riram, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/7 2. The instant application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 has been filed jointly by the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 praying for setting aside and quashing of the G.R. Case No.08/2023 arising out of Aalo P.S. Case No.06/2023 under Section 380 IPC. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner No.2 is a son of the petitioner No.1, who allegedly committed theft of certain articles from the house of petitioner No.1. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 had lodged an FIR against the petitioner No.2 before the Aalo police station on 09.02.2023. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Aalo P.S. Case No.06/2023 under Section 380 IPC and in completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet No. 60/2023 dated 07.11.2023 before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the case is pending at the evidence stage before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo and one PW has been examined till date. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are father and son. The petitioner No.2 unfortunately got addicted to taking drugs and therefore, for his need of drugs, he had stolen certain articles from his father’s house. He submits that the petitioner No.1, the father on the heat of the moment had filed FIR against his son, who is a drug addict. He submits that the petitioner No.2, son has realised his mistake about stealing the articles from his father and thereafter, selling them to third person for procuring drugs. The learned counsel further submits that thereafter, the son had apologised to his father and with the interference of the family Page No.# 3/7 members, the son had been put into a drug rehabilitation Centre, namely, Living Clean Adams Rehabilitation Centre, Ruksin and he has already completed his rehabilitation in the aforesaid drug rehabilitation centre. He submits that due to the aforesaid facts, the father and the son duo have agreed to settle the issue amicably and to remain in the same house as family members. He submits that in terms of the aforesaid, an agreement between the petitioners have already been executed as Deed of Agreement dated 08.09.2026 wherein, both the parties have agreed to settle the issue amicably. The petitioner No.1, i.e., the father has stated that out of frustration and in the heat of the moment, he had filed the FIR mistakenly and since his son i.e, the petitioner No.2 had already gone through the rehabilitation programme, he does not have any complaints against his son. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this is a fit case wherein the prayer of the petitioners may be allowed by quashing the proceeding pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. 5. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the father and son have already settled their issue amicably and are staying together, he does not have any objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 6. It is seen that the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 are father and son and it has been stated that the son was a drug addict and he has been put into drug rehabilitation centre and the son has already completed 6(six) months of his rehabilitation programme in the aforesaid rehabilitation centre. It is also seen that the issue relates to stealing Page No.# 4/7 certain articles from his own house by the petitioner No.2, wherein the father, being frustrated had filed the FIR. Since the matter does not relate to any heinous crime which will have certain impact on the society, this Court is of the considered view that since petitioners have already settled their dispute between themselves, the prayer of the petitioners should be allowed. 7. 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 Page No.# 5/7 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 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) Page No.# 6/7 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.” 8. Having regard to the facts and considering that the dispute between the petitioners has been amicably resolved and 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. 9. Accordingly, the G.R. Case No.08/2023 arising out of Aalo P.S. Case No.06/2023 under Section 380 IPC, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge Senior Division, Aalo, is hereby quashed. 10. In terms of the above, the instant criminal petition is disposed of. Page No.# 7/7 JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by TAGE BUNYI Date: 2026.09.23 17:31:19 +05'30'