Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040001272026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./18/2026 Tato Byaling and 5 Ors Son of Shri Tanga Byaling, resident of Sigumrijo, Daporijo, PO and PS Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Nyajum Singkom Byaling Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Tato Byaling resident of Sigumrijo Daporijo PO and PS Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Miss Nyara Singkom Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Tanya Singkom resident of Siyum Village PO nacho PS Taliha Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Miss Nyapa Singkom Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Tanya Singkom resident of Siyum Village PO nacho PS Taliha Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Miss Nyapi Singkom Page No.# 2/7 Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Tanya Singkom resident of Siyum Village PO nacho PS Taliha Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Miss Mary Hankar Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Tapen Hankar resident of Veterinary Colony Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Mitem Ratan, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. M. Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This joint application is filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 by the accused persons and the victim praying for quashment of the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No.55/2025, arising out of Daporijo P.S. Case No.47/2025 under Sections 117(2)/74/69/3(5) BNS, 2023 pending before Page No.# 3/7 the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, on the basis of settlement between the parties. 3. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 10.07.2025 at 23:00 hrs a written complaint was received from the petitioner No.6 alleging that on 09.07.2025, at around 20:10 hrs she was brutally attacked by group of people at Singhik Hotel, Daporijo with fist and kick on her body and grabbed her hair and pulled her down. It is further alleged that they have outraged her modesty. That the petitioner No.1, Tato Byaling(Nalo) had stated that he was a bachelor and had approached petitioner No.6 for marriage and started keeping physical relationship since the month of March, 2025. After 4(four) months of relationship, suddenly a group of women, headed by his wife, brutally attacked the petitioner No.6, resulting in her hospitalisation. The petitioner No.1 not only failed to keep his promise of marriage but he had also physically tortured her and, on one occasion, despite her repeated protest, he had video recorded the physical relationship with him at Itanagar. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, a case was registered being Daporijo P.S. Case No.47/2025, under Section 117(2)/74/69/3(5) BNS, 2023. On completion of the investigation, police has filed the charge sheet on 03.09.2025 against the petitioners No.1 to 5, which is pending consideration of the charges against the petitioners No.1 to 5 in the trial court. 5. During the pendency of the trial, the parties have entered into a settlement on 20.01.2026, whereby, the parties have compromised the Page No.# 4/7 dispute. Hence, this petition is filed for quashment of the criminal proceedings on the basis of the settlement. 6. On the perusal of the records, it is evident that, admittedly, a group of women (petitioners No.2 to 5) attacked petitioner No.6 on the allegation that the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.6 were having an affair, which was objected to by the wife of the petitioner No.1. On the face of it, the petitioners No.2 to 5 have attacked the petitioner No.6, which resulted in injuries to the petitioner No.6; however, as per the medical report, the injuries appears to be simple in nature having certain multiple scratches, bruises and swelling. 7. It appears that, after realizing that the petitioners No.1 to 5 have been charge-sheeted, the parties have entered into a compromise by way of settlement as the issue pertains to allegation of extramarital affairs between the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.6. 8. Having considered that the attacked was due to allegation of extramarital affairs between the petitioner No.1, and petitioner No.6, which was led by the wife of petitioner No.1 and considering that the parties have settled the matter on their own volition and without any coercion to the petitioner No.6, I am of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as chances of conviction are bleak and remote as the parties have already settled the matter. Page No.# 5/7 9. The law on quashment of the criminal proceedings has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Lakshmi Narayan and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 which is reproduced 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: 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; I15.4. 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 Page No.# 6/7 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 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. “ 10. On consideration of the materials available on records, and also considering that the parties have settled the matter amicably and stated to be maintaining cordial relationship between them and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that this is a case where inherent powers of this Court can be invoked. Accordingly, criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No.55/2025, arising out of Daporijo P.S. Case No.47/2025 under Sections 117(2)/74/69/3(5) BNS, 2023 pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, is hereby set aside and quashed. Page No.# 7/7 11. Criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant