Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040003272026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./51/2026 Nama Nabam and 7 Ors Son of Late Pile Nabam, resident of Mobuso-I, PO and PS Seijosa, Pakke Kessang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Maya Nabam @ Maya Tok Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Adam Nabam resident of Mobuso-I PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Tomas Tachang Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Lali Tachang resident of Mobuso-I PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Marcus Tachang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Radek Tachang resident of Mobuso-II PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Mohan Tachang Age: Page No.# 2/8 Occupation : Son of Late Radek Tachang resident of Mobuso-II PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Tado Tachang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tatang Tachang resident of Lumta Village PO and PS Pakke Kessang Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Kholi Tachang Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Pahi Tacahng resident of Mobuso-II PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Kame Techi Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tahang Tachang resident of Mobuso-II PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Taba Tagum, Tassar Tato,Hage Tai,Likha Tabin,Rage Koyu Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 3/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 09-03-2026 Heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The instant criminal petition has been filed jointly by the petitioners praying for setting aside and quashing of the Charge-Sheed No. 08/2025, dated 23.10.2025 under Section 324(5)/331(2)/332(c)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 arising out of Seijosa P.S. Case No. 06/2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 46/2025, pending trial before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that on 24.07.2025, one Shri Luise Nabam, who is the son of petitioner No. 1 (the complainant), allegedly assaulted Shri Lali Tachang, a disabled person and thereby caused grievous injuries to him. The said incident reportedly arose out of a sudden altercation between them after the shuttering plank belonging to Shri Lali Tachang was dragged away by a tractor driven by Shri Luise Nabam. It is further stated that, in retaliation for the aforesaid assault upon Shri Lali Tachang, some family members and relatives of the victim, out of emotional outburst and distress, allegedly ransacked the house of Shri Luise Nabam and vandalized the car belonging to Maya Nabam @ Maya Tok (petitioner No. 2) on 25.07.2025 at around 2:00 a.m. 4. Consequent upon the aforesaid incident which occurred on 25.07.2025, petitioner No. 1, being the father of Shri Luise Nabam, lodged an FIR dated Page No.# 4/8 25.07.2025, before the Seijosa Police Station against petitioner Nos. 3 to 8, which was registered as Seijosa P.S. Case No. 06/2025 under Sections 324(5)/331(4)/332/333/351(3) of the BNS, 2023. On the same day, i.e., 25.07.2025, another FIR was also lodged by Maya Nabam @ Maya Tok before the same police station. Subsequently, the aforesaid two FIRs dated 25.07.2025, lodged by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, were clubbed together and registered as Seijosa P.S. Case No. 06/2025 under the aforementioned sections. 5. The police, after investigation, filed Charge-Sheet dated 23.10.2025, being Charge-Sheet No. 8/2025, against the following persons, namely, Sri Tomas Tachang, Sri Marcus Tachang, Sri Mohan Tachang, Sri Tado Tachang, Sri Kholi Tachang and Sri Kame Tachang, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh and the matter is presently pending trial. 6. Mr. T. Tagum, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the root cause of the matter was a minor issue and thereafter, after a small tussle between two persons, the matter aggravated and the families of the rival parties got involved. However, the differences between the parties have been amicably settled with the intervention of village elders and family members from both sides. Accordingly, a Deed of Mutual Settlement dated 25.09.2025, was executed between the informants and the alleged accused persons in the presence of village authorities and family members, which was duly registered before the Executive Magistrate, Seijosa, Pakke Kessang District, Arunachal Pradesh in accordance with the local customary practice. 7. Mr. Tagum, learned counsel submits that the aforesaid settlement was accordingly intimated to the Investigating Officer, however, since the matter relates to a non-compoundable offence, Charge-Sheet No. 8/2025 dated Page No.# 5/8 23.10.2025 was filed against petitioner Nos. 3 to 8, wherein the settlement arrived at between the parties was also specifically mentioned. He submits that although the issue relates to a non-compoundable offence, the High Court has sufficient power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh, as the matter has already been settled between the parties and continuing the trial would be a futile exercise. He further submits that the rival parties belong to neighbouring villages and have been living peacefully with each other. In view of the aforesaid circumstances presently prevailing, he submits that this Court should invoke Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 and quash the criminal proceedings pending trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 8. Ms. L. Hage, 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. 9. 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. 10. 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). 11. It is seen that the petitioners have already settled the issue by entering into a Deed of Mutual Settlement dated 25.09.2025, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the FIRs were filed due to misunderstandings and Page No.# 6/8 both the parties agree to maintain peace and harmony in the future by settling the issue amicably amongst themselves. 12. 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. 13. 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 Page No.# 7/8 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 Page No.# 8/8 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.” 14. 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, the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 46/2025 under Sections 324(5)/331(2)/332(c)/ 351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to Seijosa P.S. Case No. 06/2025 and the subsequent Charge-Sheed No. 08/2025, dated 23.10.2025, pending before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh, are hereby quashed. 15. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant