Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040001552026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./25/2026 Smti Aruna Tayeng and 2 Ors Wife of Shri Gemin Ayom, resident of Kangkong Village, PO Roing, PS Shantipur, Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Gemin Ayom Age: Occupation : Son of Late Apuram Ayom resident of Jia village PO Roing PS Shantipur Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Nun Pertin Age: Occupation : Son of Bijay Pertin resident of Remi Village PO and PS Dambuk Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, Oken Duggong,Honi Tana Tara,Nani Kuru,Phurpa Wangmu,Kirpi Nyorak Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 12.02.2026 Heard Ms. Nikita Danggen, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, has been jointly filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the FIR No. 02/2026, dated 20.01.2026, registered before the Dambuk Police Station u/ss. 140(3)/126(2)/127(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the informant, the petitioner No. 2 is the victim, and the petitioner No. 3 is the accused, in the aforesaid Police Station case pending investigation. 4. The brief fact of the case as submitted by the petitioners is that on 20.01.2026, there was a meeting conducted by the Angong Society at the residence of one Nalom Lego at Bomjir village on the matter related to clan. After the meeting, a group led by the accused intercepted the victim and forcefully took him away. The informant/petitioner No.1 believing that her victim husband has been abducted, she had an apprehension about his safety and immediately lodged a written First Information Report(FIR) before the police station resulting in registration of the aforesaid Police Station case. However, no sooner, the victim returns home without any harm. Page No.# 3/6 5. It is submitted that in the evening of the day of the incident; the victim was taken along with the accused and others due to mistake of fact in connection with issuance of a No Objection Certificate(NOC) for All Arunachal Pradesh Stutdents’ Union(AAPSU) related election which otherwise was not connected with the victim. On return of the victim husband, the informant having realized that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged due to some serious misunderstanding; she had informed the I.O. of the case, expressing her willingness to withdraw the said First Information Report(FIR). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the informant had informed the police expressing her willingness to withdraw the First Information Report(FIR) lodged by her, the police had informed her that the case has already been registered under non-compoundable offence; therefore, subsequently, the parties have executed a deed of mutual settlement on 29.01.2026, showing that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. In the said settlement deed, the informant-petitioner No. 1 and the victim-petitioner No. 2, have clearly expressed that since the First Information Report(FIR) was lodged in connection with the incident which occurred due to mistake of fact, the informant and the victim do not have any grievance against the accused-petitioner No. 3, and they would not like to proceed with the matter any further. However, as the police have no power and jurisdiction to compound the already registered non-compoundable case, hence, by way of filing this petition under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners pray for quashing of the First Information Report(FIR), in question. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the parties are not willing to pursue with the matter; there is no possibility of any conviction into the case even if it is allowed to proceed with, rather, it would be a futile exercise causing an unnecessary harassment to both the parties which would amount to an abuse of process. Page No.# 4/6 7. Ms. Hage, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, on record, submits that the CD reflects that immediately, after registration of the First Information Report(FIR) against the accused-petitioner No. 3; the investigating officer of the case had received 2(two) separate undertakings executed on Non- Judicial Stamp Paper by the informant-petitioner No. 1 and the victim-petitioner No. 2 signed before the Notary Public, Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing, wherein, both the informant-petitioner No. 1 and the victim-petitioner No. 2, while stating that the parties have amicably settled the matter, have expressed their willingness to withdraw the First Information Report(FIR). 8. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that after receipt of the said undertakings; the further investigation of the case, could not be proceeded as the parties have amicably settled the matter amongst themselves and they have expressed that the First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged by the informant-petitioner No. 1 due to mistake of fact. 9. Under the circumstances, she fairly submitted that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, considering that the alleged incident allegedly occurred due to mistake of fact and that the informant and the victim have no further grievances and do 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 incident which occurred due to mistake of fact caused unintentionally by the accused-petitioner No. 3 to the victim. However, the parties have amicably settled the matter, and petitioner No. Page No.# 5/6 1(informant) and petitioner No. 2(victims) now have no grievance against the accused/petitioner No. 3 and do not wish to pursue the case any further. The dispute appears to be personal in nature and does not affect the society at large. In fact, the investigation of the case did not proceed further after the informant had informed the I/O of the case expressing her willingness to withdraw the First Information Report (FIR) as it was lodged wrongly due to mistake of fact. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be only a remote possibility of submission of charge-sheet against the alleged accused and much less the conviction even if it is allowed to proceed with. In view of the above, continuation of further investigation against the accused, would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of law causing unnecessary harassment to both the parties. 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 of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can quash 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 a settlement/ compromise between the victim and the offender. 13. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case, where inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 14. Accordingly, the proceedings of investigation in Dambuk Police Station No. 02/2026, registered u/s. 140(3)/126(2)/127(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023, arising out of FIR dated 20.01.2026 pending Page No.# 6/6 investigation at Dambuk Police station, against the accused Shri Nun Pertin is hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 15. With the above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant