Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040007262026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./125/2026 Tam Tangam and 3 Ors Son of Late Tam Gumsang, a permanent resident of Tubang, PO and PS Balijan, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Techi Bida Age: Occupation : Son of Late Techi Laji of Nyishi Tribe present and permanent resident of Rakap Village PO and PS Balijan Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Techi Hania Age: Occupation : Son of Late Techi Laji of Nyishi Tribe present and permanent resident of Rakap Village PO and SP Balijan Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Techi Takam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Techi Laji of Nyishi Tribe present and permanent resident of Rakap Village PO and PS Balijan Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP Page No.# 2/6 represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Nabam Rama, Teshi Aaku,N Kuma,Techi Ita Tara,T Rahul,N Kanu,P Tatam Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 21.05.2026 Heard Mr. N. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This joint application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside G.R. Case No. 151/2023 arising out of Balijan P.S. Case No. 05/2023, registered under Sections 448/427/436/380/506/201/34 of the IPC against accused/petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the informant, and petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are the accused in the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 151/2023 arising out of Balijan P.S. Case No. 05/2023 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that on 25.02.2023, petitioner No. 1 lodged a written First Information Report (FIR) before the Officer-in-Charge, Balijan Police Station, against accused/petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4, alleging criminal trespass, theft of valuable property worth Rs. 40 lakhs, burning of his scooty, criminal intimidation with threats to murder, and damage to his dwelling Page No.# 3/6 house. Based on the aforesaid written FIR, a case was registered as Balijan P.S. Case No. 05/2023 under Sections 448/427/436/380/506/201/34 of the IPC and was investigated into. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, and the case is presently pending before the said Court. 5. The petitioners contended that petitioner No. 1 is the brother-in-law of accused/petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4, having married their sister. Upon receiving information that their sister had attempted suicide, petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4, due to a serious misunderstanding, damaged certain properties, leading to the filing of the FIR and subsequent submission of the charge-sheet. 6. Mr. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that during the pendency of the trial, the parties amicably resolved the dispute and subsequently executed a Deed of Mutual Agreement dated 11.05.2026, wherein the informant clearly stated that he had forgiven accused/petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 for their acts, which were committed due to misunderstanding and without any malicious intention. The mutual settlement records that the matter was settled in order to maintain cordial relations amongst the family members, namely petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. The informant further stated that he has no further grievance against accused/petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 and does not wish to pursue the matter any further. 7. It is submitted that, under the circumstances, there is no likelihood of conviction of the accused in the case, and if the proceedings are allowed to continue, it would cause unnecessary harassment to both parties and amount to abuse of the process of law. Therefore, he prays for setting aside and quashing the proceedings in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. Page No.# 4/6 8. Mr. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that upon perusal of the records, it appears that the informant and accused/petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are brothers-in-law, the informant having married the sister of the accused/petitioners. The dispute arising between the relatives has been mutually resolved by execution of a deed of settlement dated 11.05.2026, wherein the informant clearly expressed that he has no further grievance and does not wish to pursue the matter any further. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and considering that the incident allegedly occurred due to misunderstanding between them, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the documents available on record. 10. It appears that the informant and accused/petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are brothers-in-law, petitioner No. 1 having married the sister of the accused/petitioners. The records reveal that, due to misunderstanding, accused/petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 caused damage to the property of the informant/petitioner No. 1, leading to the lodging of the FIR and subsequent filing of the charge-sheet against them. However, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the deed of settlement executed on 11.05.2026, whereby the parties have mutually resolved the dispute. The informant, having pardoned the accused, has expressed that he has no further grievance against them and does not wish to pursue the matter any further. The settlement further records that the dispute was amongst family members and was resolved in order to maintain peace and cordial relations amongst themselves. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Page No.# 5/6 dispute was purely between family members and has been amicably resolved amongst themselves. The dispute, being private in nature, does not affect society at large. Furthermore, since the matter has been amicably settled, there is hardly any possibility of conviction in the case. Under such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would only cause harassment to the parties and would amount to abuse of the process of law. 12. In such cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of power under 482 of the Code can quashed the criminal proceeding even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society on the ground that there is settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender. 13. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in[(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in[(2014) 6 SCC 466], as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (supra), where the Apex Court has permitted quashing of 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 Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 14. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 151/2023, arising out of Balijan P.S. Case No. 05/2023, registered under Sections 448/427/436/380/506/201/34 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, , against the accused, Shri Techi Bida (petitioner No. 2), Shri Techi Hania (petitioner No. 3) and Shri Techi Takam Page No.# 6/6 (petitioner No. 4), are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 15. With the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant