Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040009222024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./108/2024 Salil Pandeya proprietor of Yuvraj Steel Technology SCO Bearing 31, situated in Club Road, TDI City, Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana 131029 VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP 2:Krish Agarwala Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Shri Sushil Agarwala Shree Rani Sati Agencies A Sector Naharlagun 7911110 Advocate for the Petitioner : Sandeep Dahiya, Eho Menjo Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Nannu Yubi,M Lego,Tame Rimi,Bomyom Ori,N Tania,Uttam Deka,K Gara,Chorpok Modi BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 13.02.2026 Heard Mr. Sandeep Dahiya, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Gyati Tado, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Aditya Agarwal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. Page No.# 2/5 2. By way of filing this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside of G.R. No. 747/2024, arising out of Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 74/2024, registered u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief fact of the case is that based on an First Information Report(FIR) lodged by the respondent No. 2 on 15.07.2024, before the Naharlagun Police Station; the aforesaid case has been registered against the accused petitioner. During investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested, however, he was subsequently released on bail. Upon completion of the investigation; the police laid the charge-sheet against the accused petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and the matter is now pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. 4. Mr. Dahiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the accused petitioner for non- repayment of a loan amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the informant respondent No. 2. However, while the case was still under investigation, the petitioner has already repaid the entire amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the informant respondent No. 2 to which the informant/ respondent No. 2 has accepted and acknowledged the receipt. 5. Mr. Dahiya, learned counsel, further submits that after receipt of the entire loan amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the petitioner; the informant/respondent No. 2 has expressed that since he has already received his loan amount, he has no further grievance against the accused and therefore, he does not want to pursue with the matter any further. The same was communicated to the learned trial Court through the investigating officer of the case. By an order dated 30.12.2024, Page No.# 3/5 the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, accordingly, recorded that the investigating officer of the case has stated that the matter is regarding non- repayment of the loan amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- taken by the accused from the informant, and the dispute being civil in nature, the parties have settled the matter amicably and therefore, the petitioner is no longer required for further remand under police custody. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the matter has amicably been settled between the parties and the informant having no further grievance against the accused, he does not want to pursue with the matter any further; the further proceeding of the case would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of law as there is no scope of any conviction in the case. Hence, the learned counsel prays for quashing of the First Information Report(FIR) No. 74/2024 and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 7. The learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2 fairly submits that although the informant has filed an affidavit-in-opposition raising objection to the quashing petition; however, as the accused petitioner has subsequently repaid the entire loan amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the informant; the informant has no further grievance against the accused and therefore, has no objection if this Court allows the prayer of the petitioner for quashing and setting aside of the aforesaid case. 8. Mr. Tado, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, also fairly submits that the dispute is purely civil in nature and has been amicably settled between the parties. Since there is no likelihood of conviction in the case, he has no objection if the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside of the G.R. No. 747/2024, arising out of Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 74/2024, registered under Page No.# 4/5 Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is allowed. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the available record. 10. It is evident that the dispute between the parties have arisen due to non- repayment of a loan amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- taken by the accused petitioner from the informant. However, subsequently, the accused petitioner has repaid the entire amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the informant during the pendency of the investigation/trial and the dispute has now been amicably settled between the parties. From the above, prima facie, it appears that the matter pertains to the money transaction and non-repayment which is of civil in nature. Since the dispute being civil and private in nature, does not have any significant impact on the society at large, therefore, continuing with the proceeding of the case would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that the cases which does not affect the harmonious existence of the society at large, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023], can quash the criminal proceedings if the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and such quashing would serve the ends of justice. 12. In this regard, the notable judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court include: (i). Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in cases that are overwhelmingly, or, predominantly civil in nature when the Page No.# 5/5 parties have resolved their dispute amicably. (ii). Narinder Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein, it was held that in cases essentially of a private nature, where the possibility of conviction is remote, proceedings may be quashed to promote harmony. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the settlement arrived at between the parties; this Court is satisfied that allowing the proceedings of the case to continue, would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 14. Accordingly, the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 747/2024, arising out of First Information Report(FIR), dated 15.07.2024, registered as Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 74/2024, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, against the accused petitioner Shri Salil Pandeya, are hereby quashed. 15. With the above, this criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant