Crl.Petn./162/2026 of Taniram Mingki and 4 Ors Vs The State of AP on 23 June 2026

ORDER

Date : 24.06.2026

Heard Mr. Jumgam Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Duksor Loyi, learned P.P., 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 victim/ informant and the accused persons, praying for quashing and setting aside of the proceedings of G.R. No. 39/2023 arising out of Sille-Oyan P.S. Case No. 1/2023 registered u/ss. 448/323/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code; pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat.

3. The petitioner No. 1 Shri Taniram Mingki is the informant(victim), and the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, 6, are the accused persons in the aforesaid Sille-Oyan P.S. Case No. 1/2023.

4. The brief facts of the case is that on 27.01.2023, the petitioner No. 1 lodged a written First Information Report(FIR) against the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, alleging forceful abduction and assault on him with sticks, punches and kicks. Based on the aforesaid First Information Report(FIR), Sille-Oyan P.S. Case No. 1/2023 was registered and the accused persons were arrested and subsequently, released on bail. Upon completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet No. 13/2023 dated 31.10.2023 came to be submitted before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, against all the accused persons. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and framed charge against the accused persons i.e. petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, for the offence punishable under Sections 365/323/447/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the trial, 4(four) prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

5. It is submitted that during the pendency of the case, the parties, being close relatives, resolved their disputes amicably by executing a Compromise Deed/Settlement Agreement dated 13.03.2026, whereby, it is stated that the informant(victim) and the accused persons (petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5) being closely related family members and the informant being the brother-in-law of all the accused persons, have amicably settled their misunderstandings. In the said agreement, the informant has categorically stated that he has no further grievance and he does not want to pursue the matter any further.

6. It is further stated in the aforesaid agreement dated 13.03.2026, that the parties have agreed to cooperate with each other in taking steps for quashing and setting aside of the criminal proceeding pending against the accused persons i.e. petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the witnesses examined so far in the present case including the victim, did not implicate the accused persons(petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5) for commission of the alleged offence and 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 all 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. 39/2023 arising out of Sille-Oyan P.S. Case No. 1/2023 registered u/ss. 448/323/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending trial before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, fairly submits that considering the fact that the informant(victim) i.e. petitioner No. 1, and the accused persons(petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5) are closely related family members and the informant being the brother-in-law of all the accused persons and also taking into consideration, the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties as well as the fact that the informant has no further grievance against the accused petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, and that, he does not wish to pursue with the matter any further; he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed.

9. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the record.

10. The present case arose out of an incident which allegedly took place between the informant(victim) i.e. petitioner No. 1 and the accused persons(petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5) in the house of the informant at Village Sika-Tode on 27.01.2023, due to a misunderstanding between the parties which led to the lodging of a First Information Report (FIR) on 27.01.2023 before the Officer-in- Charge of Sille-Oyan Police Station by the informant(petitioner No. 1). However, during the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably settled the matter by executing a compromise deed/settlement agreement dated 13.03.2026. In the said deed of settlement, it has been stated that with the intervention of the family elders, well-wishers, and community members, all the parties have amicably settled their disputes and they 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 persons(petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5) would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. No. 39/2023 arising out of Sille-Oyan P.S. Case No. 1/2023 registered u/ss. 448/323/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code; pending trial in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, against the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, namely, Shri Obuk Gao, Shri Oten Gao, Shri Tayor Gao, and Shri Talut Gammi, respectively, are hereby quashed.

14. 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