Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040002142026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./29/2026 Smti Pano Blange and Anr Wife of Shri Kabing Blange, permanent resident of Village Lachung Yangje, PO and PS Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Kalai Sangdo Age: Occupation : Son of Tame Sangdo permanent resident of Village Lachung PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Vijay Jamoh, S Tsering,Abanso Gamre,B Padung Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/7 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 is jointly filed praying for quashment of the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No.14/2022, under Sections 419/468/471 IPC, 1860 arising out of Seppa P.S. Case No.08/2022 pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District, on the basis of settlement between the parties. 3. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 21.02.2022 at 13:00 Hrs, a written FIR was filed before Officer In-Charge, Seppa Police Station, East Kameng District by one Smti. Pano Blange/petitioner No.1 to the effect that one Mr. Kalai Sangdo of village Lachung Yangje, petitioner No.2, has forged her signature and the minutes of meeting with regard to appointment of his father, namely, Shri Tame Sangdo as Gaon Burah against the vacant post of Gaon Burah, due to the demise of Lt. Sampa Blange and Lt. Tapla Blange. 4. Pursuant thereto, the police has registered a case being Seppa P.S. Case No.08/2022 under Sections 419/468/471 IPC, 1860, which is pending trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District. The jurisdictional court has framed the charges against the petitioner No.2 on 27.09.2023 5. Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case was initiated by filing the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner No.2 due to misunderstanding and political difference between the parties, as the said misunderstanding has arisen during the Panchayat Election when the petitioner No.2 and his family members have not supported the Page No.# 3/7 candidature of the petitioner No.1 in the Panchayat Election and also during the selection of Gram Chairperson in favour of the petitioner No.1 for 8/3 Lachung Yangje of 8th Seppa West Gram Panchayat. He submits that appointment of father of the petitioner No.2 as Gaon Burah of Lachung Yangje has nothing to do with the alleged forged signature or minutes of meeting for recommending the appointment of the father of the petitioner No.2 as Gaon Burah, as the appointment was on the recommendation of the local MLA and on the strength of representation given by the villagers of Lachung Yangje. The father of petitioner No.2 is presently serving has Gaon Burah of Lachung Yangje village with full dedication and utmost sincerity. 6. Mr. Jamoh, learned counsel, submits that the petitioners have resolved their misunderstandings and have amicably settled the matter. The petitioner No.1 is no longer willing to pursue the matter as the aforesaid FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding which is now resolved. The petitioners are presently living as good neighbours. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No.14/2022, under Sections 419/468/471 IPC, 1860 may be quashed, as the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly in view of the bleak chances of conviction. 7. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that, prima facie, the petitioner No.2 has not only forged the signature and minutes of the meeting but also forged documents of some other persons. As such, there is incriminating material indicating, prima Page No.# 4/7 facie commission of the alleged offences, which are offences against the society. He further submits that since the charges have already been framed against the petitioner No.2, the ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings as projected, particularly the settlement between the parties, would not absolve petitioner No.2 of the alleged offences. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the trial court records. 9. The record indicates that the petitioner No.2 is alleged to have forged the signature of the petitioner No.1 with duplicate stamp of the Gram Chairperson of the village Lachung Yangje and also forged the minutes of meeting in the name and stamp of Gram Chairperson recommending the name of Shri Tame Sangdo, father of the petitioner No.2 for appointment as Gaon Burah in the vacant post of the said village. However, it is vehemently argued that the appointment of the father of the petitioner No.2 as Gaon Burah of Lachung Yangje is on the basis of the recommendation of the local MLA and on the representation of the villagers, who is stated to be continuing as Gaon Burah of the said Lachung Yangje village. 10. During the pendency of the proceedings, a deed of settlement has been entered into by the petitioners on 26.01.2026 as aforesaid FIR dated 21.02.2022 against the petitioner No.2 was due to misunderstanding and political differences between them. The settlement reflects that the father of the petitioner No.2, namely Shri Tame Sangdo was appointed as Gaon Burah on the basis of the recommendation of local MLA and has nothing Page No.# 5/7 to do with the allegation of using the forged signature and the minutes of meeting. Accordingly, the parties have decided to settle the matter amicably and are now stated to be living peacefully as neighbours. 11. 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 Page No.# 6/7 482 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 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. “ 12. Having considered that the parties have settled the matter amicably and are now living peacefully as neighbours, and also considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of considered view that the criminal proceedings in G.R. case deserve to be quashed, as chances of conviction are bleak and the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. Thus, I deem it appropriate to Page No.# 7/7 invoke the inherent powers of this Court. Accordingly, criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No.14/2022, under Sections 419/468/471 IPC, 1860 arising out of Seppa P.S. Case No.08/2022 pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District, is hereby quashed. 13. Criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant