Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040003592026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./60/2026 Talo Dibo and Anr Son of Late Talo Talang, resident of Hong Village, PO and PS Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Talo Nampi Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Talo Dibo resident of Hong Village PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Khoda Tari, Millo Komo Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed jointly by the informant (wife) and the accused (husband), praying for setting aside and quashing of the G.R. Case No. 31/2022, arising out of Ziro W.P.S. Case No. 03/2022 under Sections 498A/506/323 of the IPC, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ziro. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is the accused (husband) and the petitioner No. 2 is the informant (wife) in the above G.R. Case arising out of the aforesaid Police Station Case. 4. The case of the petitioners leading to the filing of this petition is that on 05.06.2022, petitioner No. 2 (wife) lodged an FIR before the Ziro Women Police Station alleging that her husband, petitioner No. 1, had started behaving rudely towards her and had subjected her to mental, physical and financial harassment and had also assaulted her causing injury, which led to the registration of the aforesaid Ziro W.P.S. Case No. 03/2022 under Sections 498A/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused, Petitioner No. 1 (husband), under the aforementioned sections. Thereafter, charges were framed and the trial proceeded before the Page No.# 3/6 learned Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ziro. The next date of appearance is fixed on 19.03.2026. 6. However, during the pendency of the trial, the parties, being wife and husband, have mutually settled their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement dated 23.02.2025, wherein it is stated that due to incompatibility and the irreconcilable nature of their disputes, the parties have agreed to live separately and that, for the welfare of their three minor children, the dispute has been mutually settled with certain terms and conditions, mentioned in the settlement deed, considering the need for maintenance of wife and children. 7. It is further submitted that after the mutual settlement of the case, the petitioner No. 2 (wife) has also withdrawn the maintenance case against the petitioner No. 1 (husband) and clearly expressed that the petitioner No. 2 (wife) has no further grievance against the accused petitioner No. 1 (husband) and that she does not want to pursue the matter any further against the accused husband. 8. Mr. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the matter has been mutually settled between the wife and the husband, there is hardly any scope of conviction of the accused petitioner No. 1 and under the circumstances, the further proceedings of the case against the accused petitioner No. 1 would be a futile effort and would rather cause unnecessary hardship to the parties, which would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, Mr. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioners, prays for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 31/2022, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ziro. 9. Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in cases of a Page No.# 4/6 similar nature, this Court, in Criminal Petition No. 28 of 2020 (Rupanjoy Chakraborty and Another vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh), has set aside and quashed the criminal proceedings. He also relied on the decision of the case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Bitan Sengupta and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another, reported in (2018) 15 SCC 366, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court based on the Mutual Settlement had set aside and quashed the order of conviction passed against the appellants. 10. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that since the matter is between the wife and the husband and the dispute has been mutually settled between the parties, considering the harmony life and welfare of their children and as the wife has expressed that she has no further grievance against the accused petitioner No. 1 (husband) and does not want to pursue the matter any further, she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners quashing the proceedings of the case is allowed. 11. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available record. 12. It is evident that the dispute is between the husband and wife, and both parties have settled their differences through a compromise by executing a Settlement Agreement dated 23.08.2025. On perusal of the Settlement Agreement executed between the parties, it appears that petitioner No. 2/informant has clearly expressed that in view of the compromise between the parties she has no further grievances against her accused husband/petitioner No. 1 and that she does not wish to proceed further with the case. 13. Since the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute and does not have any significant impact on society at large, continuing with the criminal trial before Page No.# 5/6 the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ziro would amount to harassment to both sides and an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of law. 14. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that in cases involving matrimonial disputes and other family matters, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), can quash the criminal proceedings if the matter has been amicably settled and such quashing would serve the ends of justice. 15. In this regard, the notable judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court include: i. Gian Singh vs. 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, particularly matrimonial disputes, when the parties have resolved their dispute amicably. ii. Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. 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 to promote harmony. iii. B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, wherein the Court observed that in matrimonial disputes, if the parties have settled their differences, there is no justification in continuing the criminal proceedings. 16. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (Supra), Narindra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supra), B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana (Supra) as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 Page No.# 6/6 SCC 688, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has permitted quashing of proceedings even in non-compoundable offence in cases involved in private disputes which do not effect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case, where the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, should be exercise to secure the ends of justice. 17. 17. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 31/2022, arising out of Ziro W.P.S. Case No. 03/2022 under Sections 498A/506/323 of the IPC, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ziro, Lower Subansiri District against the petitioner No. 1, Sri Talo Dibo, are hereby set aside and quashed in the interest of justice. 18. In terms of the above, the joint petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant