Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040001432026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./44/2026 Smti Dado Yama and Anr Age: 42 Occupation : Address:Wife of Shri Dado Tajuk resident of Abotani Colony Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Ipe Taso Age: 30 Occupation : Address:Wife of Shri Jumdu Taipodia resident of Liru Village PO and SP Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the PP of AP ------------ Advocate for : Jyoti Zongluju Advocate for : P P of AP appearing for The State of AP: Advocate appearing for respectively. Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 10.03.2026 Heard Ms. Y. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State. 2. This is an application filed jointly under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for quashing the FIR No. 0001/2026, dated 03.01.2026, registered at P.S. Likhabali, District Lower Siang, under Sections 329(4)/118(1)/305(a)/74/351(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, an FIR was lodged by the petitioner no. 2 before the Officer In-charge, Likhabali Police Station, on 03.01.2026, inter alia, alleging that on 02.01.2026, at around 8.30 PM, the petitioner no. 1 along with 7(seven) other persons unlawfully trespassed into her residential house with a common intention and brutally attacked her and her family members; that during the course of the assault, the petitioner no. 1 forcibly robbed taking away two(2) mobile phones, cash amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only); that the petitioner no. 1 accessed her Facebook account and posted random, false and objectionable content, thereby misusing her identity and causing severe mental harassment and social humiliation. 4. After registration of the aforesaid FIR, with the timely intervention of respectable members of the community, family elders and common friends, both the petitioners were made to understand the futility of continuing with the litigation, which would only exacerbate animosity and disrupt family peace. During the pendency of the investigation, the parties have amicably resolved and settled all their disputes and differences and have arrived at an amicable settlement and Page No.# 3/6 accordingly, executed a Deed of Settlement and Compromise on 16.02.2026 at Likhabali, whereby the parties have mutually agreed to put an end to the criminal proceedings. 5. The petitioner no. 2 had made a specific statement in the aforesaid Deed of Settlement and Compromise that she acknowledges that any allegations regarding the robbery of the two mobile phones and a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) were made due to a misunderstanding. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the FIR as well as the complaint was filed due to certain misunderstandings and presently the parties have settled the issue amicably. She also submits that the parties have agreed to resolve the issue among themselves and therefore, have filed this joint petition praying for quashing the FIR No. 0001/2026 dated 03.01.2026. She further submits that this Court has inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the proceedings when the parties have amicably settled their dispute and no longer wish to pursue the matter against the accused person. She also submits that in a catena of cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has allowed such prayers for quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court when the matter is purely personal in nature and is unlikely to result in conviction. 7. Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. P.P. submits that though Deed of Mutual Settlement and Compromise dated 16.02.2026, has been executed by the parties, he has objection in the matter as the petitioner no. 1 has criminal antecedents of involving in such cases. 8. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and has also gone through the materials placed before this Court. 9. It is seen that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have already settled the issue by Page No.# 4/6 entering into a Deed of Settlement and Compromise dated 16.02.2026, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the FIR was filed due to misunderstandings and that the concerned Power of Attorney contained the signatures of the petitioner No. 1 and 2. 10. In view of the aforesaid settlement of the matter and considering that the offence alleged to have been committed is not a major offence or a heinous crime having a serious impact on society, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is one where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 can be invoked, as the chances of conviction are far too bleak and remote and the continuance of such proceedings in the present case would be futile and an abuse of the process of law. 11. 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; Page No.# 5/6 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) 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.” Page No.# 6/6 12. 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 Mutual Settlement and Compromise 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, the FIR No. 0001/2026 dated 03.01.2026, registered at P.S. Likhabali, District Lower Siang, under Sections 329(4)/118(1) /305(a)/74/351(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, is hereby quashed. 13. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant