JUDGMENT

Shri Dinesh Tacho/petitioner No. 1 and Shri Mamugey/ petitioner No.

2 have jointly preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for invoking the inherent power of this Court to quash the FIR of Anini P.S. Case No. 14/10, under Section 337 IPC, read with Section 25(IB)/27 (I) of the Arms Act and the Charge-Sheet No.01/2011, corresponding to aforementioned case, which is presently pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Anini. Be it mentioned here that the above mentioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by petitioner No.2, who has shot at petitioner No.1 with his gun and injured him due to some domestic dispute.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly, stated as under:-

“On 16.12.2010 Sri Mamugey Tacho/the petitioner No. 2 herein had lodged one FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Police station, Anini to the effect that due to some domestic problem, he had shot his brother, namely, Sri Dinesh Tacho at about 09.00 hours. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station, Anini registered a case being Anini P.S. Case No. 14/2010, under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 (I) Arms Act and endorsed the same to Sub Inspector T. Tako to investigate the case. The investigation, so carried out, culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet under Section 337 IPC read with Section 25 (IB)/27 (I) of the Arms Act against the petitioner No.1. While the case was pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Anini for trial, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, who happened to be the brothers in relation, at the intervention of the family members, arrived at a settlement and also entered into a settlement agreement, dated 27.10.2021, and basing upon the said settlement agreement, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the proceeding pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Anini”.

3. I have heard Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

4. Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are brother in relation and their dispute is civil in nature and at the relevant time altercation took place between the two brothers accidentally a bullet went off from the gun, which was on the back of the petitioner No. 2, and injured the petitioner No.2 and he had no intention to cause the same. Mr. Garam, further submits that at the behest of the family members and local villagers, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have settled their dispute and they have also entered into a settlement agreement and based upon the said settlement agreement, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the further proceeding pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Anini .Mr. Garam also submits that since the dispute is between 2 (two) brothers and since it is private in nature and not against the society, the petition can be allowed to meet the ends of justice. Mr. Garam also referred one case law of the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh-vs-Laxmi Narayan; reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 to make good of his submission.

5. On the other hand, Mr. J. Tsering, learned PP submits that the petitioner No.2 is charge sheeted under Section 25 (IB)/27 (I) of the Arms Act, besides Section 337 of the IPC. Mr. Tsering, further submits that apart from other conditions, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the offence also before invoking its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also the scanned copy of the record received from the learned Court below. It appears that Anini P.S. Case No. 14/2010 under Section 307 IPC read with Section 25 (IB)/27 (I) Arms Act has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by the petitioner No. 2 on 16.12.2010, wherein, in no uncertain term, the p