Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040009282026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./160/2026 Keknga Gadi and 2 Ors Son of Kurkek Gadi, resident of Deke Village, PO and PS Tirbin, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Jarnga Lombi Age: Occupation : Son of Late Kijar Lombi resident of Chekor LombiVillage PO and PS Tirbin Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Smti Ngamar Lombi Gadi Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Keknga Gadi resident of Deke Village PO and PS Tirbin Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Reken Ingo, Tegelum Tolo,S Ahmed,Kipa Yabi,Jumken Ete,Aruna Rai Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. R. Ingo, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional 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), petitioner No. 2 (the informant), and petitioner No. 3 (the victim), praying for setting aside and quashing of the G.R. Case No. 08/2026, arising out of Tirbin P.S. Case No. 01/2026, registered under Sections 85/115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. 3. The petitioner No. 1, Shri Keknga Gadi, is the accused and husband of petitioner No. 3; petitioner No. 2, Shri Jarnga Lombi, is the informant and father-in-law of petitioner No. 1; and petitioner No. 3, Smti. Ngamar Lombi Gadi, is the victim and wife of petitioner No. 1. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present criminal petition are that, on 09.04.2026, petitioner No. 2/informant lodged a written FIR before Tirbin Police Station against petitioner No. 1, alleging that he had subjected his daughter/petitioner No.3 to cruelty and physical assault. On the basis of the said FIR, Tirbin P.S. Case No. 01/2026 was registered under Sections 85/115(2) of the BNS and was taken up for investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet being C.S. No. 02/2026 dated 05.05.2026 was submitted against petitioner No. 1. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, took cognizance of the offences, and the case is presently pending for trial before the said Court. Page No.# 3/5 5. Mr. Ingo, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are husband and wife and have two children. He submits that, during the pendency of the matter, the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved by way of a Deed of Settlement dated 13.06.2026. As per the terms of the settlement, the alleged incident arose out of certain matrimonial discord between petitioner No. 1 (husband) and petitioner No. 3 (wife). However, the parties have now amicably resolved their differences and are living together peacefully along with their two children. 6. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 2, Shri Jarnga Lombi, who is the informant and father-in-law of petitioner No. 1, no longer has any grievance against petitioner No. 1 and does not wish to pursue the matter any further. 7. The learned counsel further submits that the FIR was lodged on account of matrimonial discord and misunderstandings between the husband and wife. Since the dispute has now been amicably settled and the parties have resumed their matrimonial relationship, there remains no likelihood of securing the conviction of petitioner No. 1. It is contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment to the parties concerned. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners have jointly prayed for quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceedings by invoking the inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 9. On the other hand, Ms. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the dispute is purely matrimonial in nature and has been amicably settled between the parties vide settlement agreement dated 13.06.2026. Since there is no likelihood of conviction, she has no objection to the prayer made by the Page No.# 4/5 petitioners for quashing the proceeding. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the available record. 11. It is evident that the dispute is purely matrimonial in nature and arose between the husband and wife. The parties have since amicably resolved their differences by entering into a Deed of Settlement dated 13.06.2026. Petitioner No. 2/informant and petitioner No. 3/victim have categorically stated that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 12. Since the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute and does not have any significant impact on society at large, continuing with the criminal trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo would amount to an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of law. 13. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that in cases involving matrimonial disputes and other family matters, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS), can quash the 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 Page No.# 5/5 466, 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. iii. B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, wherein the Court observed that in matrimonial disputes, if the parties have settled their differences, there is no justification in continuing the criminal proceedings. 15. Also, 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. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is satisfied that allowing the proceedings to continue would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 17. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 08/2026, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, arising out of Tirbin P. S. Case No. 01/2026 under Sections 85/115(2) of BNS, against accused/petitioner No. 1, Shri Keknga Gadi, is hereby quashed. 18. In terms of the above, the joint petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant