Familial disputes may warrant quashing of criminal proceedings when parties reach an agreement, provided the offences are not heinous.

ORDER

Date : 26-06-2025 Heard Mr. R. Rakshap, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. T. Jini, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. By filing this petition jointly under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 , the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the F.I.R being Darak P.S. Case/FIR No. 01/2022, dated 03.12.2022; the subsequent Charge-Sheet No. 01/2023, dated 14.10.2023 and the criminal proceedings in G. R. Case No. 130/2023, under Section 380 IPC, pending trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aalo, West Siang District.

3. The main ground for the quashing of the aforesaid FIR, Charge-sheet and the proceeding, is that, both the informant (petitioner No. 1 herein) as well as the accused person (petitioner No. 2 herein), have entered into an agreement, by a Deed of Agreement, 24.06.2025 [Annexed as Anexure-3 (A) to the petition].

4. It is further noticed that the present petition is preferred by both the informant as well as the accused person and the same is a joint petition filed for the quashing of the aforesaid FIR, Charge-sheet and the proceeding.

5. The allegation against the accused person (the petitioner No. 2) is revealed from the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the father of the accused person (the petitioner No. 1), wherein, the informant has stated that his son who is 21 (Twenty- One) years of age is a habitual thief and that he has stolen many articles, including valuable local antique items and sold the same to others. The informant also stated that his son is a drug addicted person, who was kept in the rehab for 6 (Six) months for his treatment but he could not recover from the said addiction.

6. The Police, on receipt of the FIR, registered the case, under section 380 IPC. On completion of the investigation, the Police laid the Charge-sheet, on 14.10.2023 and submitted the same before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, West Siang District.

7. Mr. R. Rakshap, learned counsel for the petitioners, states before this Court, that the FIR was lodged by the father of the accused person before the Police Station, as the father had no other alternative, as his son had become a habitual thief and did not recover from his drug addiction, although he was kept in the rehab, 6 (Six) numbers of times. He has placed, the Deed of Agreement, between the father and the son, wherein, the father had stated that he had to lodge the FIR only to put his son into some fear and pressurize him to stop from excessive alcohol consumption as his son was addicted beyond controllable limits and that his son under intoxication, creates tension in the family members and being infuriated, by the behaviour of his son, the father lodged the FIR.

8. It is also stated by Mr. Rakshap, learned counsel for the petitioners that at present, the case is fixed for Consideration of Charges, before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. The case has not reached the trial, as of now.

9. On the other hand, Ms. Jini, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, states that the FIR was lodged in the year 2022 and she is not aware as to the stage of the proceeding before the learned CJM, Aalo. However, in her usual fairness, she has submitted, that since the incident is between the son and the father and the son is admittedly, an addict, she has no objection if the case is quashed. She also stated that continuation of the case would not result in any good consequences and in view of the Deed of Settlement, if the son recovers, as it was stated therein, he will not continue his bad habit.

10. I have heard the parties and I have gone through the records.

11. The incident