Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040015942026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./307/2026 Taba Mushi @ Musa and Anr Son of Shri Taba Hari, resident of Sood Village, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Topi Raksap Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Taba Mushi resident of Sood Village PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Lissing Perme, Natu Niji,A Perme,Toge Rolley,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.# 2/8 2. The instant application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 has been filed jointly by the petitioners praying for setting aside and quashing of the G.R. Case No.701/2017 corresponding to ITA W.P.S. Case No.105/2017 registered under Section 498-A/323 IPC. 3. The facts of the case leading to filing of the instant criminal petition are that the petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2. Both the petitioners got married in the year 2006 and out of their wedlock, 3(three) children were blessed. After 9(nine) years for their marriage, it is alleged that the petitioner No.1 was having an illicit relationship with a lady and due to the fact, constant quarrel started to occur between the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.2 was, in fact, compelled to leave the matrimonial home and went to live with her parents in her parental home in village Raksap. However, due to interference of the family members of petitioners, the matter was resolved by executing a marriage settlement deed dated 28.02.2015. However, it is alleged that in spite of the settlement deed dated 28.02.2015 wherein, the petitioner No.1 agreed to stop torturing the petitioner No.2 as well as stop his extra marital affair that he was having with other lady, the petitioner No.1 did not keep his promise. Since, the petitioner No.1 was not stopping his extra marital affairs, the petitioner No.2 was compelled to approach the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia and filed domestic violence case, i.e., DV Case No.03/2016. Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 was staying separately for some time. However, both the parties resolved their marital discord and issues between them on 13.08.2016 by appearing before the Lok Adalat. And thereafter, the petitioner No.2 had withdrawn the Domestic Page No.# 3/8 Violence Case No.03/2016 filed against the petitioner No.1. Subsequent to such settlement, both the petitioners were staying peacefully together. However, on 05.11.2017, about 1:00 am, the petitioner No.1 assaulted the petitioner No.2 and therefore, the petitioner No.2 lodged an FIR before the Itanagar Women Police Station against the petitioner No.1 alleging mental and physical cruelty. In terms of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered Itanagar W.P.S. Case No.105/2017 under Section 498-A/323 IPC dated 06.11.2017. 4. After the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia and at present the trial is at the stage of summoning witnesses to testify before the court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to the order dated 23.07.2026 wherein the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia has recorded that the accused person was absent with steps and the learned Defence Counsel submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of the court and since Section 498-A is non-compoundable, the parties have decided to approach the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court to quash the case. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after the incident had occurred, the families of the petitioners sat together and with the interference of the families of the petitioners, both the parties have resolved the issues between them and decided not to pursue the case pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. He submits that the petitioners are presently staying together peacefully Page No.# 4/8 along with their children. He submits that complainant has agreed not to pursue the case and therefore, she remained absent before the trial court. He submits that since the complainant is not cooperating with the trial, there will not be any fruitful result going ahead with the trial and there is very remote chance of conviction of the petitioner No.1 during the trial. He submits that in terms of the settlement between the parties, both the petitioners have executed a mutual Deed of Settlement dated 12.03.2026 in presence of family members and villagers wherein, the parties have agreed to settle the whole disputes between them. The petitioner No.2 has agreed with the petitioner No.1 to approach the Gauhati High Court to quash the proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. In view of the aforesaid settlement, and since the parties are living peacefully together and the dispute arose due to marital discord, the prayer of the petitioners should be allowed by setting aside and quashing the FIR as well as subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 7. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the matter relates to matrimonial dispute and does not have any major bearing in public as such and since the parties have already settled the dispute between them by executing a Settlement Deed, he does not have any objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 8. It is seen that both the petitioners are husband and wife, who got married in 2006 and they have been blessed with 3(three) children, who have already grown up. It is also seen that there was certain marital discord between them and their discord has already been settled once Page No.# 5/8 before the Lok Adalat. It is also seen that despite the settlement and agreement by petitioner No.1 to stop his illicit relationship, he was continuing the same. It is seen that because of such behaviour of the petitioner No.1, there was constant quarrel between the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 which compelled the petitioner No.2 to file FIR against her husband, i.e., petitioner No.1. It is also seen that after due interference of the family members as well as subsequent understanding between the parties, the petitioners have resolved the issues between them and have agreed to stay together. It is also submitted that the parties have been staying together thereafter. 9. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and since, the parties have already settled their disputes and also that the offences alleged in the FIR are not of heinous crime or having major penalties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition can be allowed. The parties have also brought on record the mutual settlement deed executed between the parties. Though Section 498-A is non-compoundable offence but this Court under the powers of Section 528 BNSS, 2023 can allow the prayer of the petitioners. 10. 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: - Page No.# 6/8 “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, 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 Page No.# 7/8 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 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 Page No.# 8/8 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. 12. Accordingly, the G.R. Case No.701/2017 corresponding to ITA W.P.S. Case No.105/2017 registered under Section 498-A/323 IPC pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Frist Class, Yupia, is hereby quashed. 13. In terms of the above, the instant criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by TAGE BUNYI Date: 2026.09.23 17:44:46 +05'30'