Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040006642026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./112/2026 Smti Yanga Guha and Anr Daughter of Shri Tagia Guha, permanent resident of Rikung Village, PO and PS Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Sanglo Potong, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Langpu Roman @ Dangyu Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Langpu Tadang resident of Pillua Village PO and PS Tali Kra Daadi District presently residing at ESS Sector 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 : Tsering Gyatso, Phurpa Tsering,Tayom Gamoh,Logsang Yountan,Dejum Tally Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 12.05.2026 Heard Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent. 2. The petitioners have jointly filed the instant petition, under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside of the GR Case No. 272/2017 and subsequent Charge-Sheet No. 09/2018 dated 05.03.2018, arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 44/2017, registered under Sections 498A/417/427/494/323 of the IPC, presently pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nagarlagun, Yupia, Papumpare. 3. The petitioner no. 1 (the ex-wife of petitioner no.2), had lodged an FIR on 12.05.2017 against the petitioner no. 2, alleging therein that in the month of July, 2015, the petitioner no. 2 proposed the informant for marriage; that accordingly, the informant accepted his marriage proposal and started living together as husband and wife; that after several months, the petitioner no. 2 started cheating with the informant with other girls; that on 24.04.2016, the petitioner no. 2 physically assaulted the informant when she raised objection for having affair with other girls; that subsequently, the petitioner no. 2 assaulted her and she sustained injury and had to undergo treatment at NEIGRIMS, Shillong for torn ear membrane; that furthermore, the petitioner no. 2 also destroyed the household articles such as TV, Mobile Phone and Car. 4. On receipt of the said FIR, a case being Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 44/2017 was registered, under Sections 498A/417/427/494/323 of the IPC. The police, on conclusion of the investigation, submitted a Charge-sheet being Page No.# 3/7 Charge-sheet No. 09/2018 dated 05.03.2018, under Sections 498A / 417/427/494/323 of the IPC, which is pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naharlagun. 5. It is stated by the petitioners that the FIR dated 12.05.2017 was a result of temperamental differences and misunderstanding that arose between the petitioners on account of alleged extramarital affairs and now all differences between the petitioners has been settled for the welfare of the family on the intervention of family members and elders of both the petitioners and are, presently leading a peaceful separate life. It is also stated that the petitioners had previously entered into a settlement dated 02.11.2017; however, the same was not notarized and executed in accordance with the legal requirements. It is stated that the petitioners to reaffirm and execute the settlement agreement to give it full legal authority, have entered into a Settlement Agreement again on 01.05.2026 to settle the matter between themselves, wherein the petitioner no. 1 has undertaken not to pursue the case against the petitioner no. 2 any further. It is submitted that pursuant to the settlement, the parties have decided they shall part ways and live separately in their own term and shall not interfere in each other’s life in future. The aforesaid Deed of Settlement dated 01.05.2026 has been brought on record by the petitioners by annexing it as Annexure-4 to the petition. 6. The Sections involved being non-compoundable under Section 359 of the BNSS, the petitioners have jointly instituted the present proceedings praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding now pending against the petitioner no. 2. 7. Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioners by reiterating the facts as narrated herein above, has submitted that the institution of the FIR dated 12.05.2017 was an action taken by the petitioner no. 1 in the heat of the moment without understanding the future legal consequences in the matter. It was Page No.# 4/7 contended that the deed of mutual agreement by and between the parties on 01.05.2026 is with the view to reduce into writing, the reconciliation already arrived at, between the parties and the same was signed voluntarily by the parties without any undue influence and in sound state of mind in the presence of witnesses. 8. In the above premises, Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners having reconciled their differences and having also reduced the same by executing a deed of mutual agreement dated 01.05.2026, this Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner no. 2 in exercise of its power conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS. 9. Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. P.P. for the State, in view of the facts involved in the present matter and the Deed of Mutual Settlement dated 01.05.2026, signed by the petitioners, has submitted that she does not have any objection in quashing the aforesaid FIR and proceedings under Women P.S. Case No. 44/2017, pending before the learned JMFC, Naharlagun. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also considered the materials available on record. 11. It is seen that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have already settled the issue by entering into a Deed of Settlement dated 01.05.2026, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the FIR was filed due to misunderstandings and that they have amicably settled the disputes between them. The Deed of Settlement contained the signatures of both the petitioners. 12. In view of the aforesaid settlement of the matter and considering that the offence alleged to have been committed are not major offences or heinous crimes Page No.# 5/7 having 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. 13. 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 herein below: - “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 Page No.# 6/7 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 impact 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.” 14. Having regard to the facts and considering that the dispute between the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 is primarily of private nature and the occurrence involved in the present proceedings can be categorized as pure matrimonial disputes having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature and the parties have already come to a mutual agreement by settling their whole Page No.# 7/7 differences by executing a Deed of Mutual Settlement 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, the proceedings under Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 44/2017, under Sections 498A/417/427/494/323 of the IPC, arising out of FIR dated 12.05.2017, corresponding to GR Case No. 272/2017 and subsequent Charge-Sheet No. 09/2018 dated 05.03.2018, presently pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nagarlagun, Yupia, Papumpare, is hereby quashed. 15. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant