Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040001102026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./16/2026 BTA Nyitum and 4 Ors Son of Late Biri Taging, permanent resident of Village Bogdu, PO and PS New Palin, Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Dohu Apa Age: Occupation : Son of Late Dohu Laling permanent resident of 2 Kilo PO and PS New Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Dohu Takik Age: Occupation : Son of Late Manglo permanent resident of Village Rakso PO and PS New Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Biri Lama Age: Occupation : Son of Biri Dukum permanent resident of Village Rakso PO and PS New Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Biri Paya Age: Occupation : Son of Biri Dukum Page No.# 2/6 permanent resident of Village Rakso PO and PS New Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Taja Garam, GICHIK KAKU,Byabang Mema Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 30.06.2026 Heard Mr. G. Kaku, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed jointly by petitioner No. 1 (the informant) and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 (the accused), praying for quashing of the proceedings arising out of Papu Hills P.S. Case No. 02/2026, registered under Sections 336(3)/174/175/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the basis of the FIR dated 06.01.2026. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that, the petitioner No. 1 is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party and was authorized by the party to propose the name of a candidate for the post of Gram Chairperson of Village Raksa, Kra Daadi District. Accordingly, on 20.12.2025, petitioner No. 1 proposed the name of Shri Dohu Depen as the candidate for the post of Gram Chairperson in the Panchayat Elections. Page No.# 3/6 4. On the following morning, i.e., on 21.12.2025, petitioner No. 4, Shri Biri Lama, who is the elder brother of petitioner No. 1, visited the house of petitioner No. 1 and asked him to sign a document, which was the nomination form of another candidate. At that time, petitioner No. 1 was still asleep and was also under the influence of alcohol consumed on the previous night. Although petitioner No. 4 informed petitioner No. 1 about the contents of the document, petitioner No. 1 was not fully awake and, therefore, was unable to understand the same. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 signed the document without even reading it and went back to sleep. 5. Due to the above misunderstanding, two proposals were submitted under the name of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1, however, completely forgot about having signed the second proposal in favour of the candidate proposed by petitioner No. 4. 6. On 05.01.2026, petitioner No. 1 was informed that, since there were two proposals bearing his signature, both proposals had been rejected. As petitioner No. 1 had forgotten that he had, in fact, signed the proposal presented to him by petitioner No. 4, he immediately lodged a FIR before the Officer-in-Charge on 06.01.2026, alleging that petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 had forged his signature and submitted the second proposal. Accordingly, the FIR was registered as Papu Hills P.S. Case No. 02/2026, under Sections 336(3)/174/175/3(5) of BNS. 7. Mr. Kaku, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that when petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 came to know that petitioner No. 1 had lodged an FIR against them, they immediately visited the house of petitioner No. 1 and showed him a copy of the nomination papers bearing his signature. Only then did petitioner No. 1 recall that he had, in fact, signed those papers himself. Petitioner No. 1 realized that the error had occurred due to a misunderstanding and that the allegations Page No.# 4/6 made in the FIR were based on such misunderstanding. Thereupon, the parties have amicably settled the matter by executing a Settlement Agreement dated 12.01.2026 and thereafter, the informant had submitted an application before the Officer-in-Charge of police requesting for withdrawal of the FIR. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the 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 Nos. 2 & 5 deserve to be quashed by invoking the powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 9. Ms. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that, as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties by executing the Settlement Agreement dated 12.01.2026, and in view of the fact that petitioner No. 1 had lodged the FIR due to a sheer misunderstanding and, upon realizing the facts, subsequently filed an application for withdrawal of the same, and further that the investigation of the case could not progress any further, and also considering that the informant/petitioner No. 1 has no grievance and he no longer wishes to pursue the matter, she has no objection if the prayer made by the petitioners is allowed. 10. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have also perused the materials available on record. 11. The present case arose out of an inadvertent error on the part of petitioner No. 1. Consequently, the FIR came to be lodged against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 under a mistaken belief that they had forged his signature. However, after the lodging of the FIR, petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 visited the house of petitioner Page No.# 5/6 No. 1, whereupon the true facts were brought to his notice, and the parties thereafter amicably resolved the dispute. Consequently, the informant submitted an application seeking withdrawal of FIR lodged by him. Further, the petitioner No. 1/informant, has categorically stated that he has no further grievance against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and does not wish to pursue the prosecution any further. 12. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, the settlement arrived at between the parties, and the fact that the dispute having lodged due to some misunderstanding and is essentially personal in nature without any adverse impact on society at large; and also considering the fact that the informant had subsequently submitted representation seeking withdrawal of FIR where after the investigation has not progress further, this Court is of the considered view that the possibility of securing a conviction against petitioner Nos. 2 & 5 is remote and bleak. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings /investigation 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 Page No.# 6/6 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 arising out of FIR dated 06.01.2026 registered as Papu Hills P.S. Case No. 02/2026, under Sections 336(3)/174/175/3(5) of BNS, against the accused, Shri Dohu Apa (petitioner No. 2); Shri Dohu Takik (petitioner No. 3); Shri Biri Lama (petitioner No. 4); and Shri Biri Paya (petitioner No. 5), are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. The interim order passed earlier shall stand merged with the present order. 16. With the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Checked & verified Digitally signed by SABNAM MEPO Date: 2026.06.30 19:02:17 +05'30'