Crl.Petn./157/2026 of Yumlam Nobu and 2 Ors Vs The State of AP on 18 June 2026

ORDER

Date : 19-06-2026 Heard Mr. B. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed jointly by the accused and the informant in Itanagar W.P.S. Case No. 55/2023, praying for quashing and setting aside G.R. Case No. 399/2023 arising out of Itanagar W.P.S. Case No. 55/2023 dated 03.06.2023, registered under Section 498A of the IPC, the impugned cognizance order dated 04.09.2023 and the framing of charges order dated 30.10.2024, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is the accused, petitioner No. 2 was also named as a co- accused, however, she was discharged at the stage of framing of charges by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and petitioner No. 3 is the informant/wife of petitioner No. 1.

4. The case of the petitioners leading to the filing of the present petition is that on 03.06.2023, respondent No. 3, Smti. Gollo Madame Yumlam, lodged an FIR before the Itanagar Women Police Station alleging that she had married petitioner No. 1, Sri Yumlam Nobu, in the year 2007 and that they were blessed with two children. It was alleged that since the year 2013, petitioner No. 1 had developed illicit relationships with other women and had subjected the informant to physical assault. It was further alleged that on 30.05.2022, while she was nine months pregnant, petitioner No. 1 assaulted her with a stick and had also contracted a second marriage with one Smti Nana Gollo.

5. On the basis of the said allegations, Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 55/2023 was registered under Section 498A of the IPC.

6. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet No. 81/2023 dated 10.08.2023 under Section 498A IPC only against petitioner No. 1, although the FIR had named two persons. No charge- sheet was submitted against petitioner No. 2. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, vide order dated 04.09.2023 and charges under Section 498A IPC were framed against petitioner No. 1 vide order dated 30.10.2024. The case is presently pending as G.R. Case No. 399/2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia and is fixed on 07.08.2026 for prosecution evidence. However, no prosecution witness has been examined till date.

7. During the pendency of the trial, the parties, with the intervention of elders, relatives and well-wishers, amicably settled their disputes and executed a Deed of Settlement dated 10.06.2026 at Itanagar. In terms of the said settlement, petitioner No. 3 (informant/victim) has fully forgiven petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and has agreed to maintain peace, harmony and cordial relations. It has further been agreed that all disputes and grievances between the parties stand settled and that the parties shall jointly seek quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings.

8. Mr. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that petitioner No. 3/informant has clearly expressed that she has no further grievance against petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. It is also submitted that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence and in order to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that since the dispute arose out of matrimonial discord and the parties have amicably resolved their differences, there is hardly any possibility of conviction of petitioner No. 1. It is contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing and setting aside the FIR, Charge-sheet No. 81/2023 and the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 399/2023 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia.

9. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that since the matter is between the husband and wife and the dispute has been mutually settled between the parties, considering their harmonious life and the welfare of their children, and as the wife has expressed that she has no further grievance against petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and does not wish to pursue the matter any further, she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the proceedings is allowed.

10. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

11. It is evident that the dispute is between the husband and wife, and both parties have settled their differences by executing a Deed of Settlement dated 10.06.2026. On perusal of the Deed of Settlement executed between the parties, it appears that petitioner No. 3/informant has clearly expressed that, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, she has no further grievance against petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and does not wish to proceed further with the case.

12. Since the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute and does not have any significant impact on society at large, continuation of the criminal trial before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia would amount to harassment to both sides and would be 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 powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings if the matter has been amicably settled and such quashing would secure the ends of justice.

14. In this regard, the notable judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court include:

(i) Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in cases which are overwhelmingly or predominantly civil in nature, particularly matrimonial disputes, when the parties have resolved their dispute amicably.

(ii) Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 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 vs. 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. In light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana (supra), as well as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court permitted quashing of proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences arising out of private disputes which do not affect society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS should be exercised to secure the ends of justice.

16. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 399/2023 arising out of Itanagar W.P.S. Case No. 55/2023 dated 03.06.2023, registered under Section 498A IPC, including the cognizance order dated 04.09.2023 and the order dated 30.10.2024 framing charges against petitioner No. 1, Sri Yumlam Nobu, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, are hereby set aside and quashed in the interest of justice.

17. In terms of the above, the joint petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS stands allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE

Jumbi Bam, Private Secretary. Comparing Assistant