Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040006212026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./105/2026 Tangiat Jamoh and Anr Son of Tayop Jamoh, resident of C Sector, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Mrs Sonjum Romin Jamoh Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Tangiat Jamoh resident of C Sector Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP through the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Tadar Tayum, Taring Takap,Rimo Riba Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 05-05-2026 Heard Mr. T. Tayum, 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 No.0030 dated 19.04.2018, registered as Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 30/2018 under Sections 498(A)/323 of the IPC and connected Charge-Sheet No. 18/2018, dated 25.05.2018. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is the accused (husband) and the petitioner No. 2 is the victim (wife) in the aforementioned Police Station Case. 4. The brief facts of the case leading to the registration of the FIR is that on 19.04.2018 at about 04:20 hours, an altercation arose between petitioner No.1 (husband) and petitioner No.2 (wife) at their matrimonial home owing to prolonged financial constraints, mental stress and growing misunderstandings between them. It is submitted that during the period 2017-2018, the petitioners were undergoing considerable hardship, which adversely affected their emotional stability and marital harmony, leading to frequent verbal altercations over trivial issues. On the date of the incident, petitioner No.1, who was unable to sleep properly due to stress and frustration, entered into a heated argument with petitioner No.2. In the course of the said altercation, petitioner No.1 pushed petitioner No.2, as a result of which she sustained minor and simple injuries. There was no intention on the part of petitioner No.1 to cause any grave harm. However, acting under momentary anger and emotional distress, Page No.# 3/8 petitioner No.2 lodged an FIR on the same day before the Itanagar Women Police Station against petitioner No.1, which led to the registration of the present case. 5. Consequent upon the said incident, Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 30/2018 was registered under Sections 498(A)/323 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, petitioner No.1 was arrested, however, considering the nature of the dispute and the subsequent change in circumstances, he was later released on bail upon an application moved with the consent and support of petitioner No. 2 (complainant/wife), who expressed her unwillingness to pursue the matter further. Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 18/2018 dated 25.05.2018 was submitted before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh. The learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of the matter and the case is presently pending at the stage of consideration of charge. 6. Mr. Tayum, 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, without any element of premeditation, cruelty of a grave nature or criminal intent. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 are legally wedded spouses, whose marriage was solemnised as per the prevailing customary practices of the Adi community and out of their wedlock they have one minor daughter. It is submitted that in the interest of their child and for preservation of their family, both parties, with the intervention of elders, relatives as well as well-wishers, have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences and have resumed cohabitation. The petitioners are presently living together under the same roof and are leading a peaceful and harmonious matrimonial life. Page No.# 4/8 7. Mr. Tayum, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioner No. 2 (complainant/victim) has consciously, voluntarily and unequivocally stated that she has no subsisting grievance against petitioner No.1 and does not wish to continue with the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged out of momentary anger, frustration and emotional distress, without any enduring intention to initiate criminal prosecution against her husband. In this regard, the parties have executed a Deed of Mutual Settlement dated 10.03.2026 in the presence of independent witnesses, wherein it has been categorically recorded that the disputes between them have been amicably settled and that both parties have agreed to maintain cordial relations for the betterment of their family and child. It is further submitted that the said settlement is genuine, voluntary and has been arrived at without any coercion, undue influence or pressure from any quarter. 8. Mr. Tayum, learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly submits that continuation of the present criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the very substratum of the dispute no longer survives. It is submitted that the case having arisen purely out of matrimonial discord, which now stands completely resolved, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, particularly in view of the unwillingness of the complainant/victim to support the prosecution case. It is further submitted that continuation of the criminal trial would not serve any fruitful purpose and would instead cause unnecessary harassment, oppression and prejudice to the petitioners, thereby adversely affecting their restored matrimonial life and the future of their minor child. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 and quash FIR No. 0030 dated 19.04.2018 registered at Itanagar Women Police Station along with Page No.# 5/8 Charge Sheet No. 18/2018 dated 25.05.2018 and all consequential proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh, in the interest of justice. 9. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that since the matter is between the husband and wife and the dispute has been mutually settled between the parties, considering the harmony life and welfare of their children and as the wife has expressed that she has no further grievance against the accused petitioner No. 1 (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 evident that the dispute is between the husband and wife and both parties have settled their differences through a compromise by executing a Deed of Amicable Settlement dated 10.03.2026. On perusal of the Amicable Settlement executed between the parties, it appears that petitioner No. 2/wife has clearly expressed that in view of the compromise between the parties she has no further grievances against her husband/petitioner No. 1 and that she does not wish to proceed further with the case. 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 Page No.# 6/8 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. 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 Page No.# 7/8 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 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; Page No.# 8/8 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.” 15. Having regard to the facts and considering that the petitioners have filed this petition jointly after having entered into a Deed of Amicable 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 No.0030 dated 19.04.2018, registered as Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 30/2018 under Sections 498(A)/323 of the IPC and connected Charge-Sheet No. 18/2018, dated 25.05.2018 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