Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040008512026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./145/2026 Smti Nangbia Ani and Anr Wife of Shri Debia Tajum, resident of D Sector Nirjuli, PO and PS Nirjuli, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Debia Tajum Age: Occupation : Son of Late Debia Sarbang resident of D Sector 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 : Dilip Saikia, K Perme,Marnya Ete,Toko Rini,Taku Pumbo Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner X and Y, who have jointly filed this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) with prayer for quashing of the Page No.# 2/4 G.R. Case No.329/2018 arising out of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 33/2018 under Section 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC for short). 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner No.1 is the informant and she is the wife of the petitioner No.2. The FIR was lodged way back in the year 2018 but after lodging of the FIR, both the petitioners have been staying peacefully as husband and wife without any dispute. 3. Heard Ms L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 4. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 5. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the matter pertains to a matrimonial dispute and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute. It is also submitted at the bar that the injury report depicts that no injuries have been sustained by the petitioner No.1. 6. I have also scrutinized the FIR and the Deed of Mutual Settlement marked as Annexure-1 and Annnexure-4 (series) respectively. It is true that there were allegations that the petitioner No.2 had subjected the petitioner No.1 to cruelty but the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have been staying together peacefully after the dispute. 7. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya 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 Page No.# 3/4 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: (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 Page No.# 4/4 either of the aforesaid two objectives…” 8. In the light of 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. As both the parties are staying peacefully, it is for the paramount interest of the family that further proceedings need not be pursued, more so, when the further proceedings will create abuse of the process of the court. As the petitioners have settled their dispute amicably, the possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. In view of the above, further proceedings of G.R. Case No. 329/2018 arising out of arising out of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 33/2018 under Section 498(A)/323 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC), are hereby set aside and quashed. 9. In terms of the above observation, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant