Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040003422026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./56/2026 Tama Uli and 2 Ors Son of Tamar Uli, resident of C Sector Itanagar, near Scholars Institute, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Ram Tayem Age: Occupation : Son of Tai Tayem resident of Sankyum Colony Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Raja Tayem Age: Occupation : Son of Tai Tayem resident of Sankyum Colony Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP through the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Tapi Nguki, Tenzin Chhoten,Chanya Bangsia,Sonam Tsomo,Sunil Mow Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 12-03-2026 Heard Mr. T. Nguki, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The instant criminal petition has been filed jointly by the petitioners, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for setting aside and quashing of the FIR No. 38/2026, dated 23.02.2026, under Section 126(2)/117(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the case, leading to the registration of the present FIR, are that on 23.02.2026 at around 9:30 p.m., at C-Sector near Car Wash, Itanagar, the informant was allegedly attacked by Shri Ram Tayem and Shri Tassar Tate, along with a group of their associates who were unknown to the informant. It is alleged that the aforesaid persons formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the informant with the intention to cause serious harm, without any lawful justification or provocation. As a result of the assault, the informant sustained grievous injuries, including a severe head injury, multiple fractures on different parts of the body, tooth abscess with jawline fracture, and swelling on the face. The informant was thereafter taken to Ramakrishna Hospital, Itanagar by Shri Taru Uli, along with another person, namely Shri Kunung Kipa, who had witnessed the incident. During the course of the preliminary inquiry, the Investigating Officer, Shri Samuel Ngopuk, verified the injuries of the informant Page No.# 3/7 at Ramakrishna Hospital, Itanagar, and also seized the scooties allegedly involved in the incident. 4. Consequent upon the aforesaid incident dated 23.02.2026, an FIR was registered at Itanagar Police Station vide Itanagar P.S. FIR No. 38/2026 under Sections 126(2)/117(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. In connection with the said case, the police initiated an investigation and subsequently issued notices to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, directing them to appear before the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, on 25.02.2026 at around 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of inquiry and investigation. 5. Mr. Nguki, learned counsel, submits that the aforesaid dispute arose purely out of personal and family differences and that the parties, being closely related, have amicably settled all misunderstandings and grievances of their own free will, without any force, coercion or undue influence. He submits that petitioners Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have executed a Deed of Settlement dated 09.03.2026, wherein they have agreed to restore and maintain cordial, peaceful and harmonious family relations. He further submits that since the matter has been amicably resolved and the petitioners have decided to live peacefully with no hard feelings, this is a fit case wherein this Hon’ble Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, may be pleased to quash and set aside FIR No. 38/2026 filed against petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. 6. Learned counsel submits that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, it would cause grave prejudice and extreme injustice, as the parties are family members and the dispute has already been settled amicably. He submits that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose and would constitute an abuse of the process of law. He, therefore, submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Page No.# 4/7 particularly that the dispute is purely personal and family in nature, prays that this Hon’ble Court may quash the FIR No. 38/2026, dated 23.02.2026 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the investigation, so as to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the legal process. 7. Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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. 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. 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). 10. It is seen that the petitioners have already settled the issue by entering into a Deed of Settlement dated 09.03.2026, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the FIRs were filed due to misunderstandings and both the parties agree to maintain peace and harmony in the future by settling the issue amicably amongst themselves. 11. 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 Page No.# 5/7 present case would be futile and an abuse of the process of law. 12. 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 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; Page No.# 6/7 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 Page No.# 7/7 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.” 13. Having regard to the facts and considering that the petitioners have filed this petition jointly after having entered into a deed of mutual settlement, 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 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, FIR No.38/2026, dated 23.02.2026 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the investigation, are hereby quashed. 14. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant