Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040006572026 2026:GAU-AP:448 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./110/2026 Achung Natung and Anr Son of Dugu Natung, resident of Village 6 Mile, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Kabak Tashi Age: Occupation : Son of Late Kabak Chod resident of Village 6 Mile PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Teto Taba, L Koyu,Nimcha Hondique,Nang walika Jenow,C Ering,Begi Taba Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA JUDGMENT & ORDER 11.05.2026 Heard Mr. T. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application jointly filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023, praying for setting aside and quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of G.R. Case No. 362/2017, corresponding to Itanagar Police Station Case No. 151/2017; Charge Sheet No. 164/2017, initially registered under Section 324 IPC, subsequently altered to Section 325 IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yupia, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the registration of the FIR is that the complainant (petitioner No. 2) lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, alleging inter alia that on 19.06.2017 at about 10:30 PM, the accused person (petitioner No. 1) suddenly attacked and assaulted him with a hammer (martol) and thereafter repeatedly attacked him with a long weapon (dao) at 6 KM, Itanagar, thereby causing injuries on different parts of his body. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 151/2017 was registered on 20.06.2017, initially under Section 324 IPC, which was subsequently altered to Section 325 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the Page No.# 3/7 charge-sheet was submitted vide Charge-Sheet No. 164/2017 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Yupia, District Papum Pare. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Yupia, upon taking cognizance vide order dated 20.06.2024, proceeded with the case and charges were framed against the petitioner No. 1 under Section 325 of the IPC on 02.12.2025. 5. Mr. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid Itanagar P.S. Case No. 151/2017, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court by executing a duly notarized Deed of Settlement dated 08.08.2025, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. It is submitted that the alleged incident had occurred due to a sudden misunderstanding and a momentary altercation between the parties, without any premeditation. He further submits that pursuant to the settlement, the accused (petitioner No. 1) has expressed regret and has undertaken not to repeat such act in future, and both the parties have agreed to maintain cordial relations. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant/victim (petitioner No. 2) has categorically agreed not to pursue the criminal case any further and has expressed no objection to the quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings. It is also submitted that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence, with the intervention of well-wishers and family members, in order to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. Therefore, learned counsel submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the parties have amicably Page No.# 4/7 resolved their dispute and the possibility of conviction of the accused is remote if the proceedings are allowed to continue. However, since the offence under Section 325 IPC is non-compoundable, the present joint application has been filed before this Court seeking quashing and setting aside of the entire criminal proceedings pending against the accused (petitioner No.1). 7. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the dispute appears to have been amicably resolved between the parties. He further submits that the complainant/victim has categorically expressed his no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings and has also stated that he does not intend to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. In view of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties and considering the fact that the complainant is no longer willing to pursue the case any longer, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the possibility of conviction of the accused appears to be remote. Therefore, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners quashing the proceedings of the case is allowed. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Although the offence under Section 325 IPC is non-compoundable, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to 482 Cr.P.C.), may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable Page No.# 5/7 offences, where the dispute is predominantly personal in nature and the parties have amicably settled the matter, in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 11. 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 are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for Page No.# 6/7 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; 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. 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 Page No.# 7/7 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. 13. Having regard to the facts and considering that the petitioners have filed this petition jointly after amicably settling the disputes between the parties, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would only cause harassment to the parties, which would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Further, taking into account the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases of Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra) and Gian Singh (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. 14. Consequently, the criminal proceedings arising out of G.R. Case No. 362/2017, corresponding to Itanagar Police Station Case No. 151/2017, arising out of Charge-Sheet No. 164/2017, initially registered under Section 324 IPC and subsequently altered to Section 325 IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yupia, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh, are hereby quashed and set aside. 15. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant