The court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when parties have mutually settled their disputes, especially in familial contexts, to prevent abuse of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T. Roleng, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 jointly filed by the petitioners for quashing of the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No. 09/2019 corresponding to Kaying P.S. Case No. 10/2017 under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pangin on the basis of mutual settlement between the petitioners.

3. The case set up by the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.09.2017 at 1630 Hrs a written FIR was received from one Ms. Yaleng Yapi (petitioner No.1, herein) of village Gasheng, P.S.- Kaying to the effect that on the night of 23.09.2017 at around 2330 Hrs, 2 (two) persons, namely, Shri Talem Minung (Petitioner No. 2, herein) and Shri Tagum Tali of Kaying village entered into her house by breaking the lock of the door. Shri Talem Minung proposed her for a love affair but she refused the proposal and asked him to leave and also physically assaulted her brother. He also tried to enter into her bedroom forcibly, however, she managed to run away from the house and saved herself. Inspite of that he continues to search her. Later she had to call one of her brother to disperse them.

4. Upon receipt of the above FIR, a case being Kaying P.S. Case No. 10/2017 was registered under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of the investigation, the Police has filed the Charge-Sheet being C.S. No. 14/2017 dated 09.10.2017.

5. The learned CJM, Aalo framed the charge against the petitioner No. 2, namely, Shri Talem Minung under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the G. R. Case No. 41/2018 was transferred to the Court of learned JMFC, Pangin and registered the case being G. R. Case No. 09/2019.

6. Mr. T. Roleng, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the criminal proceeding before the learned JMFC, Pangin, the petitioners have entered into a mutual deed of settlement as being the cousins and neighbours thereby decided to mutually settle the matter outside the Court. He submits that FIR has been lodged against the petitioner No. 2 by the petitioner No. 1 because of misunderstanding and petty quarrel. In any case in view of the mutual settlement on the advice of the elders of the family as well as well-wishers, the settlement has been entered into and decided to live cordially as they are cousins and neighbours living in the same village and without there being any coercion or force, the chances of conviction is remote and bleak, which would be abuse of the process of law and otherwise also the same is out of sheer misunderstanding. Therefore, he submits that the criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 09/2019 under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Pangin may be set aside and quashed.

7. Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. PP for the State in her usual fairness submits that having considered the records and in view of the mutual settlement between the petitioners and considering the nature of offence alleged as well as the petitioners are cousins and living in the same village, she would have no serious objection, if the criminal proceeding of G. R. Case No. 09/2019 under Section 448/456/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the court of learned JMFC, Pangin is set aside and quashed.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the scanned copy of the trial Court records.

9. On consideration of the materials on record, no doubt the petitioner No. 2 has admitted to have forcibly entered into the house of petitioner No. 1 under the influence of liquor but the facts remains that the petitioners are cousins and are staying in the same village. The petitioners have entered into a mutual settlement and it appears that at the relevant point of time, the parties