Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040008462026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./144/2026 Miss Tamchi Nancy and Anr Daughter of Shri Tamchi Chakum, a permanent resident of Village Nioph Nioya, PO and PS Sangram, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at C Sector, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Lokam Anthony @ Tani Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Lokam Tagung a permanent resident of Village Damin PO and PS Damin Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Nirjuli PO and PS Nirjuli Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Hage Tai, Anil Podo,Nannu Yubi,Tassar Tato Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 Page No.# 2/4 Heard Mr. D. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner X and the petitioner, namely, Shri Lokam Anthony @Tani. Both the petitioners are arrayed as petitioner No.1 and 2. 2. Both the petitioners No.1 and 2 have jointly filed this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for quashing of the proceedings of the G.R. Case No. 601/2024 arising out of Doimukh P.S. Case No. 43/2024, registered under Section 341/323/354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. Heard Ms T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. 4. I have considered the submissions at the Bar. 5. The allegation against the petitioner No.2 by the petitioner No.1 is that the petitioner No.2 had assaulted the petitioner No.1. It is submitted that now both the petitioners have buried their hatchet and they have amicably settled the dispute. It is also submitted that an agreement has been executed jointly by both the petitioners which is annexed at Annexure-6 of the petition. 6. I have also scrutinized the Deed of Mutual Settlement Agreement entered into between both the parties in the presence of the witnesses. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature and the gravity of the offence. As the petitioners have settled their dispute amicably, the possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Page No.# 3/4 Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, which is extracted, herein, below:- “14. Now so far as the conflict between the decisions of this Court in the cases of Narinder Singh (supra) and Shambhu Kewat (supra) is concerned, in the case of Shambhu Kewat (supra), this Court has noted the difference between the power of compounding of offences conferred on a court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court. In the said decision, this Court further observed that in compounding the offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceedings or criminal complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is guided by the material on record as to whether ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the very Bench ultimately concluded in paragraph 29 as under: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: Page No.# 4/4 (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives…” 7. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayan (Supra), it appears that this Court may invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Thereby, the further proceedings of G.R. Case No. 601/2024 arising out of Doimukh P.S. Case No. 43/2024, registered under Section 341/323/354 Indian Penal Code (IPC), is hereby set aside and quashed. 8. In terms of the above observation, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant