Bamang Tamin and Anr. v. The State of Ap

Gauhati HC1 Jul 2025Crl.Petn./83/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise/settlement; Section 528 BNSS 2023 petition; Sections 354/323/506 IPC; victim retraction at trial (PW-1 deposition 22.04.2025); Deed of Compromise dated 26.05.2023; remote conviction; oppression and prejudice test; Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 5 of 2020; Charge Sheet No. 09/2020; GR Case No. 34 of 2020, CJM Yupia; Gauhati High Court Itanagar Bench; Bamang Tamin and Sorang Yadap v. State of AP; single judge Shamima Jahan; order dated 02-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 5 of 2020 (dated 16.01.2020), Charge Sheet No. 09/2020 (dated 01.11.2020) and the proceeding instituted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia as GR Case No. 34 of 2020; criminal petition disposed of accordingly. ¶¶30

Bamang Tamin and Anr. Vs The State of Ap — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 5 of 2020, the Charge Sheet No. 09/2020 and the proceeding as GR Case No. 34 of 2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, ought to be quashed on the basis of the Deed of Compromise between the accused and the victim and the victim's retraction in her trial deposition. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

In view of the victim's statement before the Trial Court, conviction is remote, since in cases of the present nature the deposition of the victim is the sole consideration and, if the victim denies the offence, there is very little chance of conviction.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

It is settled law that where parties reach a settlement regarding personal issues, commercial transactions or matrimonial issues, cases can be quashed on such settlement; however, in serious cases such as murder, rape etc., cases cannot be quashed on settlement.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

Criminal proceedings may be quashed if the possibility of conviction is remote and their continuation would cause oppression and prejudice.ratio¶¶27
On the strength of the victim's statement before the Trial Court and the Deed of Compromise, the Court quashed the Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 5 of 2020 (dated 16.01.2020) under Sections 354/323/506 IPC, the Charge Sheet No. 09/2020 (dated 01.11.2020) and the proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia as GR Case No. 34 of 2020.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench), Shamima Jahan, J.: Joint petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 by the accused (petitioner No. 1) and the victim (petitioner No. 2) to quash Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 5 of 2020 (dated 16.01.2020) registered under Sections 354/323/506 IPC, Charge Sheet No. 09/2020 (dated 01.11.2020) and the proceeding as GR Case No. 34 of 2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. In her deposition recorded on 22.04.2025, the victim denied sexual assault, described a mutual physical altercation, and disowned the FIR drafted by her brother; the parties had also executed a Deed of Compromise dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure-5). Holding: while settlements of personal disputes permit quashing, serious offences such as murder and rape cannot be quashed on compromise; criminal proceedings may nonetheless be quashed where conviction is remote and continuation would cause oppression and prejudice. In offences of the present nature the victim's deposition is the sole consideration, and as she denied the offence, conviction was remote. The FIR case, charge sheet and trial proceedings were quashed and the petition stood disposed of.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040006432025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn./83/2025

¶5

Bamang Tamin and Anr Son of Shri Bamang Tadu, resident of Sanglo Putung II, 6 kilo, Papunallah, Naharlagun, PO Naharlagun, PS Papu Nallah, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

2: Miss Sorang Yadap Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Sorang Tamar a permanent resident of Pip Sorang Village PO and PS Tali Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Papu Nallah Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP through the PP of AP

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Gegum Lollen, Joram Sanjay,Thomas Jamoh,Geken Ingo,Bamang Takar

¶8

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶9

Page No.# 2/5

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 02-07-2025

¶13

Heard Mr. G. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶14

2. This is a petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, for quashing of the Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 5 of 2020, dated 16.01.2020, registered under Sections 354/323/506 IPC as well as for quashing of the Charge Sheet No. 09/2020, dated 01.11.2020 and the proceeding instituted, thereafter, before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, as GR Case No. 34 of 2020.

¶15

3. This petition is filed jointly by both the accused person and the victim, namely Shri Bamang Tamin (the petitioner No. 1) and Ms. Sorang Yadap (the petitioner No. 2).

¶16

4. The fact of the case is that at 8 p.m., the accused person, along with another person, came to the shop of the victim asking for beer and when she offered the same, the petitioner No. 1 sexually assaulted her by touching her private parts and when she retaliated, the petitioner No. 1 slapped her thrice and threatened her. The victim also stated that she begged him to leave the place, but the petitioner No. 1 continued to attack her. But in the meantime, people gathered, and the petitioner No. 1, along with the other person, fled away by riding their bike. She also stated that she got physically injured in the said incident.

¶17

5. The Police on receipt of the FIR, registered the case under Section 354 and 323 of the IPC. Thereafter, the Police on completion of the investigation, submitted the Charge-sheet on 01.11.2020 and placed the same before the Court. Thereafter, on completion of other procedures, the learned Trial Court, proceeded with the trial.

¶18

Page No.# 3/5

¶19

6. The victim was examined as PW-1 and her deposition was recorded on 22.04.2025 by the Trial Court. In the said deposition, the victim stated that the petitioner No. 1 came to her shop, asking for some alcohol, but since she was attending to some other customer, she did not attend to him and that led to an argument between her and the petitioner No. 1 and that they had beaten up each other. She deposed that she was not sexually assaulted, neither her private part was touched by the petitioner No. 1. She further stated that the FIR was drafted by her brother and that she does not know the contents of the said FIR. In her crossexaminations, she stated that it was her who had first beaten up the petitioner No. 1.

¶20

7. Mr. Lollen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits before this Court that the petitioner No. 1, the accused and the petitioner No. 2, the victim, have entered into an agreement on 26^th of May 2023, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 in the petition. He placed the Deed of Compromise, wherein, it was stated that a local meeting was convened on 26^th May, 2023, wherein, both the parties were present and the matter was discussed and it was found out that there was a misunderstanding and provocation between the petitioner No. 1 and the victim. It was further stated that both the parties have sorted out the issues amicably and that both of them agreed that they would bury the misunderstanding and would maintain cordial relationships amongst each other. The victim further agreed that she will not pursue cases against the petitioner No. 1. The said Deed of Compromise was signed by both parties and was accepted by them. As such, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prays that the proceeding instituted against the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, may be quashed.

¶21

8. Ms. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State fairly submits that the dispute is personal in nature and that both the parties have entered into an agreement, as could be noticed from the Deed of Compromise. She also submits that the statement of the victim before the Trial Court had exonerated the petitioner No. 1

¶22

Page No.# 4/5

¶23

and that there are very less chances that the case would result in conviction.

¶24

9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also gone through the materials available on record.

¶25

10. It is noticed from the records of the case that although the victim had lodged the FIR against the petitioner No. 1, alleging sexual assault as well as offence under Section 323 IPC and also, she had stated before the Police about the assault; however, in her statement before the Trial Court, she has not stated any of those. Rather, she stated that both she and the petitioner No. 1 assaulted each other, and that the FIR was lodged by her brother and she does not know the contents of the same. It is also noticed that she was not made a hostile witness by the Trial Court, since there was no prayer from the prosecution to array her, as such.

¶26

11. Further, the Deed of Compromise entered into by both the parties, shows that they have entered into a settlement and that the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding amongst them. Further, the Medical Report, annexed by petitioners in the petition, shows that there was some simple injury on the body of the victim, when she was examined on 16.01.2020, the day when the FIR was lodged.

¶27

12. It is a settled proposition of law that when the parties reach a settlement with regard to personal issues, commercial transactions or matrimonial issues, the cases can be quashed on such settlement. However, the Apex Court had held on a number of occasions that in cases of serious nature, such as murder, rape etc., cases cannot be quashed on settlement. It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that criminal proceedings may be quashed if possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of criminal proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice.

¶28

13. In view of the statement given by the victim before the Trial Court, the conviction seems to be remote, inasmuch as, in the cases of the present nature, the deposition of the victim can be the sole consideration and if the victim denies the offence, the same has a very less chance to result in conviction. Although the Hon’ble Supreme

¶29

Page No.# 5/5

¶30

Court had said that the consideration of settlement during investigation after Chargesheet and during trial should be different, but in the instant case, in view of the statement of the victim and the Deed of Compromise, this Court quashes the Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 5 of 2020, dated 16.01.2020, registered under Sections 354/323/506 IPC and the Charge Sheet No. 09/2020, dated 01.11.2020 as well as the proceeding instituted before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, as GR Case No. 34 of 2020.

¶31

14. Accordingly, the instant criminal petition stands disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Bamang Tamin and Anr. v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bamang Tamin and Anr. v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jumken Kamdak and Anr. Vs Redo Doji

Anup Baruah Vs The State of Ap

Ajay and 11 Ors. Vs The State of Ap

Smti Sonika Kabak and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Smti Rehena Begum Vs The State of Ap

Rajibur Islam Vs The State of Ap