Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040010402026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./180/2026 Toko Kamin Son of Shri Toko Tatam, resident of Yachuli, PO Yachuli, PS Yazali, Keyi Panyor District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Toko Tatam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Toko Rika presently residing Papu Yarda Colony PO Naharlagun PS Papu Hill Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Gyati Tadi, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 03.07.2026 Heard Mr. Gyati Tadi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Duksor Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the sole respondent. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, has been jointly filed by the accused and the informant, praying for quashing and setting aside of the proceedings of G.R. No. 1095/2025 Page No.# 2/5 arising out of Papu Hill P.S. Case No. 115/2025 registered u/s. 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia/Naharlagun. 3. The accused-petitioner No. 1 is the son of the informant-petitioner No. 3 in the aforesaid Papu Hill P.S. Case No. 115/2025. 4. The brief facts of the case is that, on 15.12.2025, the petitioner No. 1 telephonically asked his father, petitioner No. 2, for some amount of money to buy a Motorcycle and an Iphone. The petitioner No. 2 being busy with official duties, forgot to call back his son. On 18.12.2025, the petitioner No. 1 came to his father’s rented house in Papu Yarda Colony, Naharlagun but found it locked. When his father did not answer his call, he thought he was being avoided. Angry and frustrated, he entered the house through the kitchen window and took Rs. 9,20,000/-, in cash, from an unlocked Godrej Almirah and used it to purchase a second-hand KTM motorcycle and two Iphones. Subsequently, on 22.12.2025, the petitioner No. 2, out of anger, lodged an First Information Report(FIR) with the Officer-in-Charge, Papu Hill Police Station, against the petitioner No. 1. Based on the aforesaid First Information Report(FIR), Papu Hill P.S. Case No. 115/2025 was registered. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted Charge Sheet No. 11/2026 dated 23.01.2026 against the petitioner No. 1 for commission of the alleged offence. The learned Magistrate, Yupia/Naharlagun, took cognizance of the case and now, the same is pending for consideration of charge before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia/Naharlagun. 5. It is submitted that during the pendency of the case, with the intervention of family members and elders, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled by executing a deed of Settlement dated 18.06.2026. It is categorically Page No.# 3/5 stated in the said deed of settlement that the First Information Report(FIR) dated 20.12.2025, was lodged by the petitioner No. 2 against the petitioner No. 1(son) due to certain misunderstanding. It is also stated in the settlement agreement that the petitioner No. 2 has pardoned the mistakes of petitioner No. 1 with a view to maintain peace, harmony and cordial relation between the father and the son within the family and that, he has no further grievance against his son (petitioner No. 1) and he do not want to pursue the matter any further. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the circumstances, there is no scope of conviction in the present case even if it is allowed to proceed with, rather, it would be a futile exercise causing an unnecessary harassment to both the parties which would amount to an abuse of process. Thus, by way of filing the present criminal petition before this Court, the petitioners have jointly prayed for quashing and setting aside of the proceedings of G.R. No. 1095/2025 arising out of Papu Hill P.S. Case No. 115/2025 registered u/s. 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia/Naharlagun. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, fairly submits that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties as well as the fact that the petitioner No. 2 has no further grievance against his son i.e. petitioner No. 1 and do not wish to pursue with the matter any further; he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 8. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the record. Page No.# 4/5 9. The present case arose out of an incident which allegedly took place on 15.12.2025, when the petitioner No. 1 telephocially requested money from his father i.e. petitioner No. 2, for a Motorcycle and an Iphone. The petitioner No. 2 occupied with official duties, did not call back. On 18.12.2025, the petitioner No.1 visited his father’s rented house in Papu Yarda Colony, Naharlagun, found it locked and received no response to his call. Believing he was being avoided, he entered through the kitchen window in anger and took Rs. 9,20,000/- cash from an unlocked Godrej Almirah to buy a second-hand KTM motorcycle and two Iphones. Angered by this, the petitioner No. 2 lodged an First Information Report (FIR) on 22.12.2025 with Papu Hill Police Station against the petitioner No. 1, leading to registration of Papu Hill P.S. Case No. 115/2025. However, during the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably settled the matter by executing a deed of settlement dated 18.06.2026. In the said deed of settlement, it has been categorically stated that the dispute has been amicably settled by the parties and the petitioner No. 2 do not wish to pursue the case any further. The dispute appears to be personal in nature and does not affect the society at large. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to have been only a remote possibility of conviction. In view of the above, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused person(petitioner No. 1) would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of inherent power conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can quash the criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do no have serious impact on society on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender. Page No.# 5/5 11. In the light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, as well as in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra), wherein the Court has permitted quashing of the 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. No. 1095/2025 arising out of Papu Hill P.S. Case No. 115/2025 registered u/s. 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia/Naharlagun, against the petitioner No. 1 viz. Shri Toko Kamin, is hereby quashed. 13. In terms of the above, the instant joint petition filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant