IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under inherent powers if the parties have amicably settled their disputes, ensuring justice is served.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)

Heard Mr. Nabam Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Topi Jini, learned Addl. P.P., appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. The petitioners, herein, have jointly preferred this criminal petition, praying for quashing of the First Information Report(FIR), dated 13.09.2019, lodged by the petitioner No. 2, herein, against the petitioner No. 1, leading to registration of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 139/2021, under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code along with the charge sheet being charge sheet No. 183/2021, dated 18.12.2021, submitted by the I.O. in G.R. Case No. 828/2021, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia.

3. The petitioners, herein, are both husband and wife and had solemnized their marriage about 15 years ago. On 12.09.2021, at around 10PM, the petitioner No. 1(husband) had come home drunk and had assaulted the petitioner No. 2(wife) and had also attacked her with a knife. The petitioner No. 2, somehow, managed to run away from her house to save herself. Basing on the said incident; the petitioner No. 2 lodged an First Information Report(FIR) on 13.09.2021 before the Officer-in-charge of Itanagar Women Police Station and therein, in addition to highlighting the said incident so occasioning on 12.09.2021, had also alleged that the petitioner No. 2 had been committing such offence upon her since their marriage. The petitioner No. 2 had expressed in the said First Information Report(FIR) about the concern of the safety of their children as well. The police on receipt of the said First Information Report(FIR), proceeded to register Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 139/2021 under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of the investigation; the I.O. proceeded to submit charge sheet being charge sheet No. 183/2021, dated 18.12.2021, in G.R. Case No. 828/2021, before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Compex, Yupia.

4. Mr. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners, herein, after the incident so occasioning on 12.09.2021, had resolved their matrimonial dispute and had re-started to live together as husband and wife, peacefully. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners on resolution of their matrimonial dispute, had executed a deed of mutual settlement on 04.01.2024.

5. The petitioners, in the present proceeding, having projected that they, immediately after the incident so occasioning on 12.09.2021, were living together as husband and wife and the deed of mutual settlement only been executed on 04.01.2024; Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, had raised a doubt with regard to the bona fide behind the contentions made in the said deed of mutual settlement executed by and between the petitioners, herein, on 04.01.2024.

6. This Court, accordingly, vide order, dated 05.12.2024, had required the petitioners, herein, to appear before this Court, in person, on 10.12.2024 at 10.30AM. On 10.12.2024, the petitioners had appeared before the Court and this Court had interacted with them in the matter. During the interaction, the petitioner No. 2 had categorically stated that after the incident so occasioning on 12.09.2021, leading to lodging of the First Information Report(FIR) on 13.09.2021, by her; she and the petitioner No. 1(husband), had, by resolving their matrimonial disputes, again started to cohabit, thereafter, and were peacefully living their lives as husband and wife along with their two children. It is stated that the deed of mutual settlement so executed by and between the petitioners, herein, on 04.01.2024, was just a formalization of the resolution of the matrimonial dispute arising between them only on account of the incident which had occasioned on 12.09.2021.

7. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, was satisfied with the submissions so made by the petitioners, as stated ab