Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040012802024 2026:GAU-AP:75 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./156/2024 Matin Yirang and 3 Ors Son of Shri Tokram Yirang, resident of Ngopok Village, PO and PS Mebo, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Pappu Basfor Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Suresh Basfor resident of GTC Pasigaht PO and PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Immanuel Apum Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Yame Apum resident of Dambuk Remi PO and PS Dambuk Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Sangge Tamut Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tanigiat Tamut resident of Depi village PO and PS Ruksin East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Page No.# 2/4 The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Adam Tatak, Tonni Gammi,Dejum Tally,Goyi Taba Raju,Tukrin Ligu,Kaling Mibang,Tanur Gao,Amy Talom Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 27/01/2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. A. Talom. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed praying for quashing and setting aside of the charge-sheet No. 13/2023 in Mebo P.S Case No. 17/2023 registered as GR Case No. 243/2023 under Section 397/34 of the IPC against the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4, which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. The complainant/victim is petitioner No. 1 and the accused are petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the present application and the application has been filed jointly with a prayer for quashing of the proceedings as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on the case of Bahorilal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC Online ALL 4596 wherein the Allahabad High Court relying on the Judgments laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that even though the proceedings involving heinous and serious offences should not ordinarily be quashed on the basis of a Page No.# 3/4 compromise between the parties, this bar is not absolute. Relying on the aforementioned case, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the High Court would not rest its decisions merely because there is a mention of a heinous or serious offences in the FIR or the charge-sheet. And that it is open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of the offences is there for the sake of it or prosecution has collected sufficient evidence. For this purpose, it is would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of allegation and evidence collected during investigation. In the present case learned counsel submits that there is no ingredient of Section 397 IPC in the charge-sheet and therefore, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and quash the proceedings of GR Case No. 243/2023 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. D. Loyi has objected to the prayer on the ground that section 397 of the IPC is a serious offence and is punishable for a period of not less than 7 (seven) years and therefore, it is stated that the inherent power of this Court may not be invoked in a serious offence as in the instant case. However, due to the compromise which has been arrived between the parties, it is left to the discretion of this Court. 5. The Court has examined the submission of the learned counsels and has also perused the records. This Court has also taken note of the deed of amicable settlement which was entered into between the complainant/victim and the accused persons on 06 September, 2024. This Court has further observed that the present application has been filed jointly by the accused as well as the complainant/victim. By executing the deed of amicable settlement, the parties have agreed to settle the matter amicably as the complaint was lodged due to Page No.# 4/4 some misunderstanding and now that the misunderstanding has been resolved, the complainant does not wish to pursue the case any further. It is also stated in the settlement deed that the parties are clan brothers and have therefore decided to bury their differences through the deed of amicable settlement and the complainant has assured the accused persons that he will assist the accused persons to get themselves exonerated from the criminal proceedings pending before the court. 6. Upon consideration of the above facts and circumstances, and also upon going through the charge-sheet and also the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the prima facie view that the ingredients of section 397 IPC are not attracted in the charge-sheet and moreover, the matter is now amicably settled outside the court between the parties and it would be a futile exercise to continue with the trial. 7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. And the proceedings of GR Case No. 243/2023 under Section 397/34 of the IPC pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat is quashed and set aside. 8. The Registry shall send back the Trial Court Records expeditiously. Matter is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant