Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040001442026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./23/2026 Ipak Karga and Anr. W/o Shri Kitum Karga, aged about 64 years, a permanent resident of village Peri, PO/PS Kamba, District West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh 2: Bomkar Kamgo Age: Occupation : S/o Late Jibom Karga aged about 60 years a permanent resident of village Peri PO/PS Kamba District West Siang Arunachal Prades VERSUS THE STATE OF AP represented through the Public Prosecutor, AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Gumto Kato, Kirmani Lollen,Nyado Karga,Gamken Bam Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 02.02.2026 Heard Mr. Gumto Kato, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Gyati Tado, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/5 2. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, has been jointly filed by the informant, namely, Smt. Ipak Karga/petitioner No. 1, and accused, namely, Shri Bomkar Kamgo/petitioner No. 2, praying for quashing and setting aside of G.R. No. 14/2021, arising out of Kamba P.S. Case No. 01/2021, registered under Sections 420/465 IPC, pending for trial in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No. 1 is a GB of Peri village and petitioner No. 2, proprietor of M/s Bomkar Kamgo, who is running a Fair Price Shop(FPS) in the same village i.e. Peri. In the year 2021, a Self-Help Group of Peri village lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo, against the petitioner No. 2 alleging that the he had misused/misappropriated the Targetted Public Distribution System(TPDS) foodgrain under the National Food Security Act, 2013, without distributing the quota of rice of Antyodaya Anna Yojana(AAY) to 11 beneficiaries and had submitted the delivery report in that regard to the authority concerned by putting the thumb impression of petitioner No. 1 without her knowledge. Consequently, the petitioner No. 1 lodged the First Information Report(FIR), dated 02.02.2021, against the petitioner No. 2, leading to the registration of Kamba P.S. Case No. 01/2021 under Sections 420/465 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted the Charge- sheet No. 11/2024, dated 03.10.2024, against the accused/ petitioner No. 2 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. Vide order, dated 14.05.2025, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. By way of filing this joint application; the petitioners have sought for quashing and setting aside of the First Information Report(FIR) 02.02.2021; Page No.# 3/5 Charge-sheet No. 11/2024, dated 03.10.2024; and cognizance order, dated 14.05.2025, in G.R. No. 14/2021. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the proceedings, both the parties have amicably resolved the dispute by executing a deed of mutual settlement on 21.11.2025, wherein, it has been stated that in order to maintain peace and good relationship, promoting harmony among the members and relatives of the two families; both the parties have decided to withdraw the Kamba P.S. Case No. 01/2021 u/s. 465 IPC, and the charge-sheet No. 11/2024, dated 02.10.2024. The learned counsel further submits that since the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties in the presence of their relatives without coercion, pressure and undue influence; there is no chance of conviction of the accused petitioner No. 2 in the trial. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has, therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside of the First Information Report(FIR) 02.02.2021; Charge-sheet No. 11/2024, dated 03.10.2024; and cognizance order, dated 14.05.2025, in G.R. No. 14/2021. 7. Mr. Tado, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that the dispute is purely private in nature and has been amicably settled between the parties. Since there is no likelihood of conviction in the case, he has no objection to the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside of the First Information Report(FIR) 02.02.2021; Charge-sheet No. 11/2024, dated 03.10.2024; and cognizance order, dated 14.05.2025, in G.R. No. 14/2021. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the available record. Page No.# 4/5 9. It is evident that the dispute between the parties have arisen due to personal grievance of the petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner No. 2 and the same has been amicably settled through a compromise deed. As per the deed of settlement dated 21.11.2025 executed by both the parties; the complainant/petitioner No. 1 has categorically stated to withdraw the P.S. Case No. 01/2021 u/s. 465 IPC pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. 10. Since the dispute being private in nature, does not have any significant impact on the society at large, therefore, continuing with the criminal trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, would amount to an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of law. 11. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that the cases which does not affect the harmonious existence of the society at large, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023], can quash the criminal proceedings if the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and such quashing would serve the ends of justice. 12. In this regard, the notable judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court include: (i). Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in cases that are overwhelmingly, or, predominantly civil in nature when the parties have resolved their dispute amicably. (ii). Narinder Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it was held that in cases essentially of a private nature, where the possibility of conviction is remote, proceedings may be quashed Page No.# 5/5 to promote harmony. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the settlement arrived at between the parties; this Court is satisfied that allowing the proceedings to continue would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 14. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings of G.R. No. 14/2021, arising out of Kamba P.S. Case No. 01/2021, under Sections 420/465 IPC, pending for trial in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, Aalo, against Shri Bomkar Kamgo, is hereby quashed. 15. In terms of the above, the instant joint petition filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant