Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040007312026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./127/2026 Miss Sami Sangdo and Anr Daughter of Shri Donia Sangdo, permanent resident of Lachung Yangje Village, PO and PS Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Taluk Killo Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nibu Killo permanent resident of Killo Village PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Jambey Tsering Kee, Dejum Tally,Techi Topu Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 17.06.2026 Heard Mr. J. Tsering Kee, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been jointly filed by the informant/victim and the accused, praying for quashing and setting aside Sessions Case No. 03/2026 arising out of Seppa Women P.S. Case No. 05/2026, registered under Sections 68(a)/68(b)/69/74/75(2)/329(3) of the BNS. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that an FIR was lodged against petitioner No. 2 for offences punishable under Sections 63, 64, 68, 69, 75, 76, 79 and 351(2) of the BNS. It was alleged that the petitioner No. 2, who was then the Principal of the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Wessang, East Kameng District, started behaving inappropriately towards petitioner No. 1 and made a proposal of marriage to her. However, despite her refusal, the accused continuously harassed, stalked and coerced her into accepting his proposal for marriage and entering into a physical relationship. It was further alleged that in September, 2025, the accused forcibly entered her room and committed rape. Thereafter, he promised to marry her and take responsibility if she became pregnant. On such promise, the accused continued to maintain a physical relationship with her but subsequently the petitioner No. 2 refused to marry her, due to which the petitioner No. 1 lodged the FIR. However, after registration of the FIR, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 got married and are now happily living together in the house of petitioner No. 2. It is also stated that petitioner No. 1 is presently pregnant. Page No.# 3/7 4. Mr. Tsering Kee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the allegation involved with non-compoundable offences, the investigation continued and, upon completion thereof, a charge-sheet was filed. The case has since been committed to the Court of Sessions and is presently pending before the learned Sessions Court, Seppa. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the investigation/trial the dispute between petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 has been formally settled by executing a Deed of Amicable Settlement dated 11.05.2026. 5. It is submitted that, under the circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause unnecessary harassment to both the petitioners and, since the matter has been amicably settled and the parties are now happily married and expecting a baby out of their conjugal life, there is hardly any possibility of conviction in the case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in a catena of cases involving allegations of sexual offences arising out of a false promise of marriage, where the accused and the victim subsequently settled the dispute amicably, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceedings. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions: i. Madhukar & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1037; ii. Jatin Agarwal vs. State of Telangana & Anr., reported in 2022 Supreme (SC) 1389; iii. Kara Nayum & Anr. Vs. The State of A.P, reported in 2023 Supreme (Gau) 460; Page No.# 4/7 iv. Chandan Paswan vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2023 Supreme (P & H) 1520; v. Kahar & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in 2024 1 Crimes (HC) 460; vi. Saurab Malhotra vs. State of Rajasthan through PP & Ors., reported in 2023 Supreme (Raj) 1037; and vii. Silvestar Khonglah & Anr. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr., reported in 2022 Supreme (Megh) 96. 7. It is submitted that, in the instant case, after the lodging of the FIR, the accused married the victim and they are now leading a happy married life. The victim has categorically stated that she does not wish to pursue the FIR lodged against the accused, who is now her husband and very soon would be father to her baby. Therefore, the petitioners pray for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of the case. 8. Earlier, on the direction of this Court, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to verify through the concerned police station whether the accused and the victim really got married and are living together under the same roof as husband and wife. Today, the learned Public Prosecutor has produced a communication/WT message dated 15.06.2026 whereby the Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station, Seppa, after conducting the necessary inquiry, reported that the accused and the victim are married and are now living together as husband and wife in a rented accommodation at New Wessang, opposite VKV School, Seppa. The said communication is taken on record and marked as Document “X” for identification. 9. In view of the above, and considering that the matter has been settled Page No.# 5/7 between the accused and the victim by executing the Deed of Amicable Settlement dated 11.05.2026, the learned Public Prosecutor fairly submits that, since the accused/petitioner No.2 and the victim/petitioner No.1 are now married and living together as husband and wife, and the wife is reportedly pregnant, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused/petitioner No.2 is allowed. 10. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, including the Deed of Amicable Settlement dated 11.05.2026 and the WT message dated 15.06.2026 sent by the Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station, Seppa, regarding the marriage of the accused and the victim and they are living together as husband and wife at Seppa. 11. It appears that the accused and the victim, both being majors, had entered into a consensual physical relationship, allegedly on the promise of marriage made by the accused/petitioner No.2. The record further reveals that, due to certain misunderstandings, the accused/petitioner No.2 subsequently refused to marry the victim/petitioner No.1 and avoided her, leading to the lodging of the FIR. However, it is also evident from the record that shortly after the FIR was lodged, the accused married the victim, and they are presently living together happily as husband and wife at Seppa. It is also stated that the victim is presently pregnant. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the possibility of conviction of the accused/petitioner No. 2 is extremely remote. The dispute being purely personal in nature and having been amicably resolved between the parties, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Rather, it would cause unnecessary harassment Page No.# 6/7 to the parties. 13. It is pertinent to note that, apart from the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catenae of decisions, has held that in cases involving matrimonial disputes and other family matters, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS), can quash criminal proceedings if the matter has been amicably settled and such quashing would serve the ends of justice. 14. In this regard, the notable judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court include: i. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in cases that are overwhelmingly or predominantly civil in nature, particularly matrimonial disputes, when the parties have resolved their dispute amicably. ii. Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it was held that in cases essentially of a private nature, where the possibility of conviction is remote, proceedings may be quashed to promote harmony. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is satisfied that permitting the proceedings to continue would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 16. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in Session Case No.03/2026 pending Page No.# 7/7 before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Seppa, arising out of Seppa Women P. S. Case No.05/2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No.20/2026, registered under Sections 68(a)/68(b)/69/74/75(2)/329(3) of BNS, against petitioner No. 2, namely Shri Taluk Killo, are hereby quashed. 17. In terms of the above, this criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Sabnam Mepo (SPA) Comparing Assistant