Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040003872026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./63/2026 Ms Gobom Doji and Anr Son of Emar Doji, permanent resident of Doji Jeko Village, PO Bagra, PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Nguyum Taipodia Basar Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Bomli Basar serving as Senior Nursing Officer District Hospital Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Idak Bam, Gopi Bam,K Bam,Mindo Taso Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 19.03.2026 Heard Mr. I. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This joint application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been jointly filed by the informant/petitioner No. 1 and the accused/petitioner No. 2, seeking quashing and setting aside of the G.R. Case No. 19/2024, arising out of the Basar P.S. Case No. 15/2024, registered under Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short ‘IT Act, 2000’); Charge Sheet vide C.S. No. 13/2025 dated 06.05.2025; order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, West Siang District (ld. CJM, Aalo), whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken; and the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the accused/present petitioner No. 2, which are pending before the ld. CJM, Aalo. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the informant, and petitioner No. 2 is the alleged accused in the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 19/2024 arising out of the Basar P.S. Case No. 15/2024. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that petitioner No. 1 (informant) lodged a written FIR on 06.09.2022 against petitioner No. 2 (accused), alleging that the petitioner No. 2 had threatened to transmit her private pictures if she continued to maintain a relationship with her husband. However, the same was withdrawn before it was registered on the basis of an undertaking given by the petitioner No. 2 on 09.09.2022. Thereafter, Page No.# 3/5 both parties remained out of contact until 2024. However, due to the continued extramarital affair of the petitioner No. 1 with the husband of the petitioner No. 2, she had transmitted private/nude pictures of petitioner No. 1 to her father on 17.04.2024 through WhatsApp from her mobile phone. Consequently, petitioner No. 1 lodged an FIR dated 18.04.2024 against petitioner No. 2 before the Officer-in-Charge, Basar Police Station, Leparada District, which was registered as Basar P.S. Case No. 15/2024, under Section 66(E) of the IT Act, 2000. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed vide C.S. No. 13/2025 dated 06.05.2025 against petitioner No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 66(E) of the IT Act, 2000, and thereafter, the ld. CJM, Aalo, vide order dated 25.06.2025, took cognizance of the said offence. 6. Mr. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that during the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably settled the matter outside the court by executing Deed of Settlement dated 22.08.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 (informant) has expressed her unwillingness to proceed with the matter any further, as the dispute arose due to an extramarital relationship between her and the husband of petitioner No. 2, which has since been settled. It is also submitted that petitioner No. 2 has resolved her disputes with her husband, Shri Bomli Basar and now they are leading a happy married life. 7. He further submits that both the petitioners have also executed a Deed of Undertaking dated 10.03.2026 to dispose of all connected matters arising out of the same issue. Accordingly, it is submitted that petitioner No. 1 has no grievance against petitioner No. 2 and does not wish to pursue the matter any further. However, as the offence registered against petitioner No. 2 is non- compoundable offence, the informant has expressed her willingness to Page No.# 4/5 cooperate the accused in quashing of the FIR and the ensuing trial proceedings. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the matter has been amicably settled and there is no likelihood of conviction, the proceedings against the accused/petitioner No. 2 may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNS. 9. Ms. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and considering that the FIR was lodged due to a misunderstanding arising out of extra-marital issues between petitioner No. 1 and the husband of petitioner No. 2, which has since been resolved, and that petitioner No. 1 has no further grievance and does not wish to pursue the matter, she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 11. The present case arose out of an extramarital relationship between the informant and the husband of accused/petitioner No. 2. In a fit of anger, petitioner No. 2 allegedly transmitted nude photographs of petitioner No. 1 to her father, leading to the lodging of FIR by the petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner No. 2. However, during the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably settled the matter. The petitioner No. 1 (informant) now has no further grievance against the accused/petitioner No. 2 and does not wish to pursue the case. The dispute appears to be personal in nature and does not affect society at large. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be only a remote possibility of conviction. In view of the above, continuation of the Page No.# 5/5 criminal proceedings against the accused would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of power under 482 of the Code can quashed the criminal proceeding even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society on the ground that there is settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender. 13. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in[(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in[(2014) 6 SCC 466], as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (supra), where the Apex Court has permitted quashing of proceedings even in non-compoundable offence in cases involved in private disputes which do not affect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case, where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 14. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 19/2024, arising out of Basar P.S. Case No. 15/2024, and the charge-sheet vide C.S. No. 13/2025 dated 06.05.2025, registered under Section 66(E) of IT Act, 2000, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, against the accused, Smti. Nguyum Taipodia Basar (petitioner No. 2), are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 15. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant