Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040009292026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./161/2026 Tata Rebe and Anr Son of Late Jik Rebe, resident of Rebe Village, PO and PS Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Kepke Rebe Age: Occupation : Son of Late Logo Rebe resident of Veterinary Colony Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 79010 VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Pritam Taffo, Sr. Adv, Nyainyo Wangjen,V Mandal,Lata Beyong,Preety Moyong,Tana Rini,Rosy C Lowangcha,Vijay Dolo,Eho Menjo,Minter Karbak Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 23.06.2026 Heard Ms. M. Karbak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed jointly by petitioner No. 1 (the accused) and petitioner No. 2 (the informant), praying for quashing of G.R. Case No. 48/2025 arising out of Chayangtajo P.S. Case No. 05/2025, registered under Section 118(1) of the BNS, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District. 3. Petitioner No. 1, Shri Tata Rebe, is the accused, whereas petitioner No. 2, Shri Kepke Rebe, is the informant in G.R. Case No. 48/2025 arising out of Chayangtajo P.S. Case No. 05/2025. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that, on 24.07.2025, a local Nyel (Keba) was convened at Rebe Village regarding the distribution of compensation relating to the Frontier Highway construction on the Ato Bida Family land. During the said meeting, an intense argument allegedly ensued between petitioner No. 1 and certain clan members, culminating in an altercation involving petitioner No. 2 and others, in which petitioner No. 2 is alleged to have sustained simple injuries. On the basis of the said incident, petitioner No. 2 lodged an FIR dated 25.07.2025 before the Officer-in-Charge, Chayangtajo Police Station, alleging commission of offences by petitioner No. 1. Consequently, Chayangtajo P.S. Case No. 05/2025 was registered and taken up for investigation. Page No.# 3/6 5. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet on 10.09.2025 against petitioner No. 1 under Sections 117(2) and 118(1) of the BNS. Thereafter, by order dated 22.04.2026, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, took cognizance and framed charge against the petitioner No. 1 under Section 118(1) of BNS. The trial has since commenced, and four prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The matter presently stands posted for further prosecution evidence. 6. Ms. Karbak, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that, with the intervention of elders and relatives, the parties amicably resolved their disputes on 08.08.2025, which was duly recorded in a Minute of Meeting executed on the same date. Thereafter, on 19.06.2026, the parties executed a Deed of Settlement Agreement at Seppa formally recording the settlement. The learned counsel further submits that the injury report reveals that the injury sustained by the victim/petitioner No.2 was simple in nature. 7. She further submits that the matter is presently at the stage of trial and that the depositions of four prosecution witnesses, including the victim/informant, have already been recorded. It is submitted that the victim, during his deposition before the trial court, stated that he had sustained the injury while jumping from the house. In view of the evidence already brought on record and the subsequent settlement between the parties, learned counsel submits that there remains no likelihood of securing a conviction against petitioner No. 1 and that continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the matter has been amicably settled and the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, the proceedings against petitioner Page No.# 4/6 No. 1 deserve to be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 9. Mr. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that, having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, which are simple in nature, the evidence adduced before the trial court indicating that the victim sustained injuries while jumping from the house, the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties through the Deed of Settlement Agreement dated 19.06.2026, and the fact that petitioner No. 2 no longer wishes to pursue the matter, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the materials available on record. 11. The present case arose out of a local Nyel (Keba) held on 24.07.2025 at Rebe Village for distribution of compensation pertaining to the Frontier Highway project on the Ato Bida Family land. During the said meeting, an altercation allegedly took place between petitioner No. 1 and certain clan members, including petitioner No. 2, resulting in simple injuries. Consequently, the FIR came to be lodged and the criminal proceedings were initiated against petitioner No. 1. However, during the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and differences. Petitioner No. 2, who is the informant as well as the alleged injured person, has categorically stated that he has no further grievance against petitioner No. 1 and does not wish to pursue the prosecution any further. It is also evident from the testimony of petitioner No. 2 recorded during trial where he had deposed that he sustained the injury while jumping from the house. The injury report further reveals that the injuries sustained by the informant were simple in nature. Page No.# 5/6 12. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, the settlement arrived at between the parties, the evidence already brought on record, and the fact that the dispute is essentially personal in nature without any adverse impact on society at large, this Court is of the considered view that the possibility of securing a conviction against petitioner No. 1 is remote and bleak. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 48/2025, arising out of Chayangtajo P.S. Case No. 05/2025, and the charge-sheet, vide C.S. No. 05/2025 dated 24.08.2025, registered under Sections 117(2)/118(1) of BNS, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, Page No.# 6/6 against the accused, Shri Tata Rebe (petitioner No. 1), is hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 16. With the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant