Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040007232026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./123/2026 Byabang Ruja and Anr Son of Byabang Ruhi, resident of Raktam Colony, near SP Office, Ganga, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Byabang Rumi Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Byabang Ruja resident of Raktam Colony near SP Office Ganga Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Morrik Bagra, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 20.05.2026 Heard Mr. Deni Dignium, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been jointly filed by the accused and the informant, praying for quashing and setting aside of G.R. Case No. 76/2018 arising out of Itanagar Page No.# 2/5 Women P.S. Case No. 05/2018, registered under Sections 498(A)/328 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No. 2 who is the wife of the accused-petitioner No. 1 has lodged the First Information Report(FIR) against her husband petitioner No. 1, on 27.01.2018, alleging, therein, that though she is in a marital relationship with the petitioner No. 1, since the year 2007, however, he is maintaining illicit relationship with a girl due to which there has been a repeated dispute over the matter between them and he has been physically assaulting her from time to time. Accordingly, the aforementioned police case was registered on 28.01.2018. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge- sheet into the matter against the petitioner No. 1 for commission of the alleged offence. The learned Magistrate, Yupia, took cognizance of the case and now, the same is pending for consideration of charge before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the case; the informant wife and the accused husband have amicably resolved their dispute and formally, executed a deed of mutual settlement on 19.05.2026, wherein, it is stated that due to some misunderstanding between both the petitioners; the wife has lodged the instant First Information Report(FIR) against her husband and since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of the families, well-wishers and relatives; the informant has no further grievance against the accused and she does not want to pursue the matter any further, as now, they are happily living together. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties, the informant- Page No.# 3/5 respondent No. 2 has no further grievance against the accused-petitioner No. 1; there is no scope of conviction in the case and further proceeding of the case would be a futile exercise and it would only cause harassment to both the accused and the informant and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing and setting aside of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 05/2018 as well as the proceedings of G.R. No. 76/2018 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 6. Ms. Hage, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that as the matter has amicably been settled between the informant and the accused being wife and husband, respectively, and the allegations in the First Information Report(FIR) itself indicates that the dispute arose out of a matrimonial dispute between them, and also taking into account that a formal deed of settlement, dated 19.05.2026, has been executed between both the parties, wherein, the informant-wife has stated that she has no further grievance against the accused and does not wish to pursue with the matter; she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 7. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties. 8. It appears that the dispute arose between the wife and the husband when the accused husband alleged to have continued to maintain his illicit relationship with a girl because of which, there has been a marital discord between the petitioners resulting in lodging of the aforesaid police case by the petitioner No. 2 against the petitioner No. 1. However, subsequently, the matter has amicably been settled between the parties by formally executing a mutual deed of settlement on 19.05.2026, wherein, the informant has clearly expressed that the Page No.# 4/5 aforesaid police case being Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 05/2018, under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC, has been lodged by her due to some misunderstanding between her and her husband-petitioner No. 1 and she has no further grievance against the accused-petitioner No. 1 and does not wish to pursue the matter any further. Under the circumstances, it appears that the dispute is purely personal in nature and has arisen out of a marital discord between the husband-petitioner No. 1 and the wife-petitioner No. 2. It also appears that the dispute does not affect the society at large. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to have been only a remote possibility of conviction and thus, if the proceeding is allowed to be continued; it would only cause harassment to both the parties which would rather amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of inherent power conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can quash the criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do no have serious impact on society on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender. 10. In the light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, as well as in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra), wherein the Court has permitted quashing of the proceedings even in non-compoundable offence in cases involved in private disputes which do not affect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. Page No.# 5/5 11. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 76/2018 arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 05/2018, registered under Sections 498(A)/323 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, against the petitioner No. 1 Shri Byabang Ruja, is hereby quashed. 12. In terms of the above, the instant joint petition filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant