Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040002942026 2026:GAU-AP:207 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./47/2026 Tachi Jenpen and 2 Ors Son of Late Taye Jenpen, permanent resident off Village Nemasibo, PO Monigong, PS Tato, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tako Jenpen Age: Occupation : Son of Tachi Jenpen permanent resident of Village Nemasibo PO Monigong PS Tato Shi Yomi District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Tagam Jenpen Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tapor Jempen permanent resident of Village Nemasibo PO Monigong PS Tato Shi Yomi District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Binter Picha, Tao Tarin,Taying Nega,Jumgam Jini Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) 05.03.2026 Heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application jointly filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside the Monigong P.S. Case No. 01/2024 dated 24.01.2024, registered under Sections 465/466/467/468/472/473 of the IPC, 1860, and the subsequent Charge-sheet No. 01/2025 dated 07.02.2025, which is presently pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, as GR Case No. 02/2024. 3. The facts of the case is that the petitioner No. 1 and 2 had filed a complaint dated 18.10.2023 against the petitioner No. 3 alleging that the petitioner No. 3 had forged the signatures of the petitioner No. 1 and 2 in a Power of Attorney so as to fight for the common cause of the Saji Clan before the Court. However, due to non-registration of the FIR, the petitioner No. 1 and 2 filed CR Case No. 31/2023 before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Aalo, West Siang District, for registration of the FIR against the petitioner No. 3. Accordingly, vide order dated 14.12.2023, the learned CJM, Aalo had directed for registration of the FIR, and pursuant thereto, the Monigong P.S. Case No. 01/2024 was registered against the petitioner No. 3. 4. While the matter was pending, the petitioner No. 1 and 2 realized their Page No.# 3/7 mistake and informed the Investigating Officer of the case that actually no forgery had been committed by the petitioner No. 3 and that the signatures appearing in the Power of Attorney belonged to them. They admitted that the aforesaid FIR as well as the complaint had been filed due to certain misunderstandings. They have also stated that they executed a deed of settlement dated 12.08.2024 and an affidavit dated 13.08.2024 with the petitioner No. 3, wherein they decided to amicably settle the matter and not to pursue the case any longer, as the FIR had been filed due to misunderstanding between the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3. However, after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet, wherein the fact of the amicable settlement arrived at by the petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 has been specifically mentioned. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners belong to the same clan and reside in the same village and, in fact, they are relatives. He submits that the FIR as well as the complaint was filed due to certain misunderstandings and presently the parties have settled the issue amicably. Since they are close relatives and reside in the same village, they have agreed to resolve the issue among themselves and therefore, have filed this joint petition praying for quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the learned CJM, Aalo. He 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. He 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 Page No.# 4/7 in conviction. 6. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., fairly submits that since the issue is purely personal amongst the petitioners and the allegations do not involve commission of any heinous crime, the prayer of the petitioners may be considered by this Court. 7. 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. 8. On the agreement of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court has decided to dispose of the matter at the motion stage itself without calling for the Trial Court Records (TCR). 9. It is seen that the petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 have already settled the issue by entering into a Deed of Settlement dated 16.07.2024 as well as an affidavit dated 12.08.2024, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the FIR as well as the complaint 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. 11. The law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings in non-compoundable Page No.# 5/7 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 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 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 Page No.# 6/7 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.” 12. Having regard to the facts and considering that the petitioners have filed this petition jointly after having entered into a deed of settlement as well as an affidavit, thereby compromising the matter, and also taking into account the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Laxmi Page No.# 7/7 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 criminal proceedings in GR Case No. 02/2024 under Sections 465/466/467/468/472/473 of the IPC, 1860, corresponding to Monigong P.S. Case No. 01/2024 dated 24.01.2024, and the subsequent Charge-sheet No. 01/2025 dated 07.02.2025, pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, are hereby quashed. 13. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant