Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040006172026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./103/2026 Karan Dodum and 2 Ors Son of Late Sangkio Dodum, resident of Sangcha, PO and PS Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently posted at PHQ, Chimpu, Itanagar. 2: Shillong Tajo Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tachang Tajo resident of G Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Smti Kongo Tajo Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Karan Dodum resident of Village Sangcha PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at DFO Colony Banderdewa Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Bate Joel Koyu, Eho Menjo,Jumge Karbak,Mitem Ratan Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 04-05-2026 Heard Mr. B. J. Koyu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The instant criminal petition has been filed jointly by the petitioners, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for setting aside and quashing of the FIR dated 28.01.2017, registered as Itanagar Women P.S. Case no. 13/2017 under Sections 498(A)/326(B) of the IPC and connected charge-sheet No. 19/2017, dated 21.03.2017 in G.R. Case No. 62/2017. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is the accused (husband), the petitioner No. 2 is the informant and the petitioner No. 3 is the victim (wife) in the aforementioned G. R. Case No. 62/2017. 4. The brief facts of the case leading to the registration of the FIR is that on 27.01.2017 at about 9:00 p.m., an altercation took place between petitioner No.1 (husband) and petitioner No.3 (wife) at their matrimonial home situated at DFO Colony, Banderdewa, arising out of a domestic dispute relating to sharing of maintenance and issues pertaining to the conduct of petitioner No.3. It is alleged that during the said incident, petitioner No.3, who was under the influence of alcohol, picked up a quarrel with petitioner No.1 and attempted to assault him with a knife while he was holding their minor child. In the course of self-defence, petitioner No.1 pushed petitioner No.3, as a result of which she fell and came into contact with a utensil containing hot water, thereby sustaining Page No.# 3/8 burn injuries. Subsequently, petitioner No.2, who is the brother of petitioner No.3, lodged an FIR dated 28.01.2017 alleging commission of offences against petitioner No.1, on the basis of which the present case was registered and the injured was taken for medical treatment at State Hospital, Naharlagun. 5. Consequent upon the said incident, Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 13/2017 was registered under Sections 498(A)/326(B) of the IPC. The matter was investigated and upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 19/2017 dated 21.03.2017 was submitted before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia. The learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance vide order dated 23.09.2023, proceeded with the case and thereafter, at the stage of consideration of charge, the learned Trial Court by order dated 16.05.2024 framed charges against petitioner No.1 under the aforesaid sections. The case is presently pending at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence and is fixed on 05.05.2026. 6. Mr. Koyu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire dispute is purely matrimonial in nature arising out of a sudden domestic quarrel between husband and wife and does not involve any element of criminal intent or premeditated act. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 are legally wedded spouses and have six children from their marriage and in order to secure the welfare and future of their children, the parties have amicably resolved all their differences. Learned counsel submits that with the intervention of elders and family members, the parties have buried their past differences and have resumed cohabitation, leading a peaceful and harmonious family life. 7. Mr. Koyu, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner No.2 (complainant) as well as petitioner No.3 (victim) have Page No.# 4/8 consciously and voluntarily expressed that they have no further grievance against petitioner No.1 and are not interested in continuing with the case. In this regard, the parties have executed written Deeds of Mutual Settlement dated 29.11.2025, clearly recording that the dispute was settled long back in the year 2017 itself through family intervention, as per Nyishi traditional customs and that they, now, do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. It is submitted that the said settlement is genuine, voluntary and free from any coercion, undue influence or pressure. 8. Mr. Koyu, learned counsel for the petitioners finally submits that continuation of the present criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, as the substratum of the dispute no longer survives. It is submitted that the continuation of trial in a purely private and matrimonial dispute would serve no fruitful purpose and would only result in unnecessary hardship and prejudice to the parties, particularly petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that in view of the settled position of law that matrimonial disputes which have been amicably resolved between the parties can be quashed to secure the ends of justice, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 and quash the FIR No. 13/2017 dated 28.01.2017 registered at Itanagar Women Police Station, along with Charge Sheet No. 19/2017 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 9. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that since the matter is between the wife and the husband and the dispute has been mutually settled between the parties, considering the harmony life and welfare of their children and as the informant and the victim have expressed that they have no further grievance against the accused petitioner No. 1 Page No.# 5/8 (husband) and does not want to pursue the matter any further, she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners quashing the proceedings of the case is allowed. 10. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and has also gone through the materials placed before this Court. 11. On the agreement of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court has decided to dispose of the matter at the motion stage itself without calling for the Trial Court Records (TCR). 12. It is submitted that the petitioners have already amicably settled the matter by executing a Deed of Mutual Settlement dated 29.11.2025, wherein it has been clearly recorded that the dispute between the parties had in fact been resolved long back in the year 2017 itself through intervention of family members, in accordance with Nyishi traditional customs. It is further agreed between the parties that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. Both parties have undertaken to maintain peace and harmony henceforth, keeping in view their cordial family relations and the welfare and future of their children. 13. 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. Page No.# 6/8 14. 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 hereinbelow: “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; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore Page No.# 7/8 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 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; Page No.# 8/8 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.” 15. Having regard to the facts and considering that the petitioners have filed this petition jointly after having entered into two Deeds of Mutual Settlement, thereby compromising the matter 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, FIR dated 28.01.2017, registered as Itanagar Women P.S. Case no. 13/2017 under Sections 498(A)/326(B) of the IPC and connected charge-sheet No. 19/2017, dated 21.03.2017 in G.R. Case No. 62/2017 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed. 16. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant