Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040002822026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./45/2026 Tasa Baki and Anr Son of Late Tatum Baki, permanent resident of Ate Village, PO Siyum, PS Taliha, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Yaluk Dui Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Takam Dui permanent resident of Dui Village PO Siyum PS Taliha Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Taja Garam, Gichik Kaku,Byabang Mema Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 12.03.2026 Heard Mr. G. Kaku, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State. Page No.# 2/6 2. The petitioners, who are the husband and wife, have jointly filed the instant petition, under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside of the proceedings under Women Police Station Case No. 36/2024, under Sections 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the FIR No. 36/2024, registered as GR No. 721/2024, presently pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nagarlagun, Papumpare. 3. The petitioner no. 2, a mother of three minor daughters, had lodged an FIR on 06.07.2024 against the petitioner no. 1, alleging therein that her husband (the petitioner no. 1) has illicit relation with one lady, Mrs. Rita Borah and due to which, he has been torturing her mentally and physically and even warns for dire consequences; that on 02.04.2024, at evening, the petitioner no. 1 and said Mrs. Rita Borah came at her rented house and beaten her and as a result, she sustained serious injuries of nose and left hand and other parts of the body; that the petitioner no. 1 forcibly took her photographs while she was unclothed and threatened to circulate the same on social media, besides threatening to kill her. Therefore, having no other option, the petitioner no. 2 had left her house and presently residing with her elder brother. 4. On receipt of the said FIR, a case being Women Police Station Case No. 36/2024, under Sections 85 of the BNS, 2023, was lodged. The police on conclusion of the investigation, submitted a Charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 14/2025 under G.R. Case No. 721/2024, under Section 85 of the BNS. The case is now pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naharlagun. 5. It is stated by the petitioners that the FIR dated 06.07.2024 was a result of differences and misunderstanding that arose between the petitioners on account of alleged second marriage and now all differences between the petitioners has been settled for the welfare of the family on the intervention of family members and Page No.# 3/6 elders of both the petitioners and are, presently leading a peaceful family life. In this connection, the petitioners have executed a Deed of Settlement on 07.03.2026, declaring that the differences between them. They have agreed to live separately and thereby, have resolved that the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner no. 1 shall not be pursued by the petitioner no. 2. The aforesaid Deed of Settlement dated 07.03.2026 has been brought on record by the petitioners by way of an additional affidavit. 6. The Sections involved being non-compoundable under Section 359 of the BNSS, the petitioners have jointly instituted the present proceedings praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding now pending against the petitioner no. 1. 7. Mr. G. Kaku, learned counsel for the petitioners by reiterating the facts as narrated herein above, has submitted that the institution of the FIR dated 06.07.2024 was an action taken by the petitioner no. 2 in the heat of the moment without understanding the future legal consequences in the matter. It was contended that the deed of mutual agreement by and between the parties on 07.03.2026 is with the view to reduce into writing, the reconciliation already arrived at, between the parties and the same was signed voluntarily by the parties without any undue influence and in sound state of mind in the presence of witnesses. 8. In the above premises, Mr. G. Kaku, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners having reconciled their differences and having also reduced the same by executing a deed of mutual agreement dated 07.03.2026, this Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner no. 1 in exercise of it’s power conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS. 9. Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. P.P. for the State, in view of the facts involved in the Page No.# 4/6 present matter and the Deed of Mutual Settlement dated 07.03.2026, signed by the petitioners, has submitted that she does not have any objection in quashing the aforesaid FIR and proceedings under Women P.S. Case No. 36/2024, pending before the learned JMFC, Naharlagun. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also considered the materials available on record. 11. It is seen that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have already settled the issue by entering into a Deed of Settlement dated 07.03.2026, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the FIR was filed due to misunderstandings and that they have amicably settled the disputes between them. The Deed of Settlement contained the signatures of both the petitioners. 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. 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 herein below:- “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: Page No.# 5/6 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; 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 Page No.# 6/6 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 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 dispute between the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 is primarily of private nature and the occurrence involved in the present proceedings can be categorized as pure matrimonial disputes having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature and the parties have already come to a mutual agreement by settling their whole differences by executing a Deed of Mutual Settlement 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 proceedings under Women Police Station Case No. 36/2024, under Sections 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the FIR No. 36/2024, registered as GR No. 721/2024, presently pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nagarlagun, Papumpare, is hereby quashed. 14. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant