Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040003562026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./58/2026 Sanjoy Hangong and 2 Ors Son of Shri Norpu Hangong, Village Tato, PO and PS Tato, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Miss Yagi Ngurak Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Tachuk Ngurak Village Hone PO and PS Tato Shi Yomi District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Nyaken Ori Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tonya Ori resident of Kaying Village PO and PS Kaying Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Nalo Pada, Joshep Gao,Takom Roleng,Juel Saroh,Amy Talom,Romjir Rakshap,Bomnya Kamdak Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 13.03.2026 Heard Mr. T. Roleng, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, 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 and setting aside the FIR dated 01.05.2025 and Charge-sheet No. 04/2025, corresponding to the Tato P.S. Case No. 03/2025 dated 01.05.2025, registered as G.R. Case No. 07/2025, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), West Siang District, Aalo, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, an FIR was lodged before the Officer In- charge, Police Station Tato, Shi-Yomi District by the Adi Students’ Union, Shi-Yomi District Unit (SYDU), against Shri Nyaken Ori, a resident of Kaying, Siang District. It is alleged that the accused made highly derogatory and abusive remarks against the Adi community, particularly targeting Adi Bokar women, using objectionable expressions during a conversation which later went viral on WhatsApp. The alleged statements reportedly hurt the sentiments of the Adi community and caused social unrest. The aforesaid FIR was lodged alleging offences relating to criminal defamation, promotion of enmity between communities and outraging the modesty of women under the relevant provisions of the BNS. 4. On receipt of the FIR, police registered a case vide, Tato P.S. Case No. 03/2025 dated 01.05.2025, under Sections 356(2)/196/79 BNS, 2023, and subsequently, filed Charge-sheet No. 04/25 dated 22.05.2025. 5. After filing of the aforesaid Charge-sheet, it is stated by the petitioners that Page No.# 3/6 they have realized that the matter should not be prosecuted further as they have decided to live peacefully. It is stated that the aforementioned police case is a consequence of the FIR filed by the petitioner no. 1 against petitioner no. 3 because of some misunderstandings and miscommunications. It is also stated that the petitioners are relatives and they have decided to sort out their differences in amicable way so as to live in harmony, peace and love. Accordingly, the petitioners had entered into a Deed of Mutual Settlement dated 06.03.2026, executed before the office of the Notary public, Itanagar, whereby, the parties have mutually agreed to put an end to the criminal proceedings. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the FIR was filed due to certain misunderstandings and presently, the parties have settled the issue amicably. He 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 dated 01.05.2025 and consequential criminal proceedings including the Charge-sheet. 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 in conviction. 7. Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. P.P. for the State, in view of the facts involved in the present matter and the Deed of Mutual Settlement dated 06.03.2026, signed by the petitioners, has submitted that she does not have any objection in quashing the aforesaid FIR and proceedings under Tato P.S. Case No. 03/2025, pending before Page No.# 4/6 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. 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 petitioners have already settled the issue by entering into a Deed of Settlement dated 06.03.2026, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the FIR was filed due to misunderstandings and that they have amicably settled the disputes between them. The Deed of Settlement contained the signatures of all the petitioners. 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 Page No.# 5/6 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 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 Page No.# 6/6 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 dispute between the petitioners 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 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 dated 01.05.2025 and Charge-sheet No. 04/2025, corresponding to the Tato P.S. Case No. 03/2025 dated 01.05.2025, registered as G.R. Case No. 07/2025, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), West Siang District, Aalo, Arunachal Pradesh, is hereby quashed. 13. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant