Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020001952025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./12/2025 SHRI NOMENTO YEPTHOMI AND 2 ORS S/O LATE TOIHO YEPTHOMI, ADDRESS- OLD SHOWUBA, PO/PS- NIULAND, NIULAND KOHIMA 2: SHRI THSANSO YIM S/O LT. TATSONG YIM ADDRESS- OLD SHOWUBA PO/PS- NIULAND NAGALAND 3: SHRI HUSSAIN AHMED S/O ISLAM UDDIN PRESENT ADDRESS- NAGA UNITED VILLAGE CHUMOUKIDIMA NAGALAND. PERMANENT ADDRESS- DAKHIN BHEDAUATI VILLAGE. PO/PS- HINDU BLOCK HOJAI ASSA VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:SHRI AHOKHE CHISHI S/O LT. NGUVIHE CHISHI(COMPLAINANT) ADDRESS- LOTOVI VILLAGE PS- NUILAND PO- KUHUBOTO BO PIN 797116 NIULAND NAGALAND 3:SHRI SALMAN AHMED S/O MOIN UDDIN (VICTIM) ADDRESS- LOTOVI VILLAGE Page No.# 2/7 PS- NUILAND PO- KUHUBOTO NUILAND NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : VINNOKA ACHUMI, NISUKA CHISHI Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 22-07-2025 Heard Mr. Vinoka Achumi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. S. Mere, learned P.P for the State of Nagaland and Mr. B. Shohe, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. This application has been filed under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR No. 24/2024 dated 13.08.2024 registered under section 140(2)/3(5) of the BNS as well as the Charge-Sheet No. 11/2024 dated 27.08.2024 as well as the further proceedings instituted in the instant case. 3. In the present petition, the petitioners has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet only on the settlement been reached between the parties i.e. the petitioners and the victim. 4. The FIR dated 12.08.2024 reveals that the victim namely Mr. Salman, who is the respondent No. 3 herein was kidnapped by four unknown miscreants from his home on 12.07.2024 at around 4-5 pm. It was also stated in the FIR that the miscreants had demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs to be delivered at Vihokhu village junction at 8:00 A.M on the next day of the said kidnapping. The FIR was lodged by the Lotovi Village Council, Page No.# 3/7 Niuland who is arrayed as the respondent No. 2 in the present petition. In pursuant of the said FIR, the Police registered the case under the aforesaid section and commenced the investigation. Thereafter, the Charge-sheet was submitted by the Police on 27.08.2024. It is stated that during the investigation, the Police identified the accused persons and all the three accused persons were arrested by the Police. It is written in the Charge-sheet that on the next day of lodging of the FIR i.e. on 13.08.2024 on the information given by the father of the victim, the Police personnel gathered at Showuba OP and that at around 7:30 A.M the miscreants called up the victim’s father demanding the money and the victim’s father told them that he could not arrange the amount demanded by them to which the miscreants told the victim’s father to keep it ready by 9:00 A.M on the same day and pursuant thereto when the victim’s father arrange the ransom amount and when he was going to give the ransom amount to the miscreants, the Police personnel followed the victim’s father and arrested two petitioners who had appeared at the site place to collect the ransom. Thereafter, the Police interrogated both the petitioners and during the interrogation, the two accused persons named the other accused persons and all the three were resultantly arrested by the Police personnel. 5. Pursuant to the submission of the said charge sheet, the victim in his statement before the Police had stated that on 12.08.2024 late in the evening while he was about to reach his home, he saw some local persons proceedings towards his house and he as such followed them and reached his house. He further stated that those local persons asked for some water and took all their mobile phone and asked his name and on being confirmed that he is Salman, they took him in a vehicle by blindfolding his eyes to an unknown place. He further stated that they had beaten him up and they asked about some black business and that the miscreants had called the father of Salman by the Salman mobile Page No.# 4/7 phone. He further stated that later on the next day, the miscreants released him in a new location and on coming home he learnt that the said miscreants demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs for his safe release. The father was also examined by the Police and he stated that he got the call from his son’s mobile phone and that the caller on the other end told him to bring Rs. 2 Lakhs for getting his son back. The father as such went to inform the Council Chairman and told him about the incident. He got repeated phone calls from the kidnapper asking for the amount and when he arranged the amount he went to give the same at a particular place from where he was again directed to move to another place by the miscreants and when he reach the particular place the Police personnel came and arrested the miscreants. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 are related to each other and states that the respondent No.3 took an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from the petitioner No.3 with the promise to pay back and on 12.08.2024 on the instruction of the petitioner No.3 the other two accused persons went to the house of the respondent No.3 to get back the money and that entire incident was only to get back the money from the respondent No.3. He further states that a settlement was entered between the parties which he has annexed in the petition as Annexure-C and in the said settlement which was entered into on 24.08.2024 by all the parties including the father of the victim it was stated that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding and the entire incident revolved around an amount of money to be paid back by the respondent No.3. It was further stipulated in the statement that both are relatives and they resolved to amicably settle the issue between them. 7. The present matter was listed on 17.07.2025 and this Court had directed that since the present petition was not a joint petition and the victim was arrayed as the respondent No.3, an affidavit to be filed by the Page No.# 5/7 respondent No.3, in view of the settlement reached between the parties. In compliance of the said order, the respondent No.3 filed the affidavit on 21.07.2025 by stating inter-alia that he had taken an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on different occasions from the petitioner No.3 with the promise to repay back however, he could not give back the said amount in time. He further states that the petitioner No.3 had sent his friend to his home on 12.08.2024 and he was picked up and taken to his place wherein he stated that he and the petitioner No.3 had a discussion and that he agreed to give back the aforesaid amount. He further stated in the affidavit that since he was not in a position to repay the amount, the petitioner No.3 called up his parents and told them to arrange the money and to hand over the same on the next day at Vihokhu Village Junction. The respondent stated that his parents did not know about the financial dispute and that thereafter when the petitioner No.3 was apprehended, the family members of the petitioner came for discussion in the residence of the Vihokhu Village Chairman and in the said discussion all the parties decided to forgive the acts committed by the petitioner and that a compromise deed was entered into. 8. Ms. S. Mere, learned P.P for the State of Nagaland submits that the incident in question is a serious offence inasmuch as the respondent No.3 was picked up from his place and was taken blindfolded to another place wherein he was confined and money was demanded through the father of the respondent No.3 to which the father arrange the money after much efforts and went to give the money to the petitioners and in the process, the petitioners were arrested. She as such, stated that the offence under section 140(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 is well attracted in the instant case. She has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh -versus- Laxmi Narayan, reported in AIR 2019 SC 1296, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reiterated that only in cases of Page No.# 6/7 minor nature or civil nature or matrimonial nature which do not result in public wrong, may be settled. She also placed reliance in the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Sourav Gurgar -versus- State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, wherein the Hon’ble High Court had stated that cases of heinous nature like abducting of victim from a public place and assaulting him, may not be settled on compromise. 9. I have the learned counsels appearing for all the parties. 10. It is noticed that in the FIR mentioned above which was lodged by the Chairman of the Lotovi Village Council, it was stated that the victim was kidnapped by some unknown miscreants from his house in a vehicle and was taken to a place and that the miscreants demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs from the father of the victim which was directed to be delivered at the Vihokhu Village Junction. It is reflected in the Charge-sheet mentioned above that the respondent No. 3 was picked up from his house and by blindfolding him he was taken by the kidnappers to a different place and was kept confined in the same. It is also noticed that from the said place, phone calls were made by the miscreants to the father of the victim demanding Rs. 2 lakhs to which the victim’s father expressed his inability in giving the money. However, on the repeated phone calls for payment of the same, along with the threatening that his son would be released only thereon, the father somehow arranged the money and went to the place to hand over the same as directed by the kidnappers. Till then, the kidnappers were not known as to who they were. When the father reached the place to hand over the amount, the Police personnel who were informed prior reached the place and apprehended the kidnappers. Initially, the Police apprehended two of the kidnappers who on interrogation revealed that they kidnapped the victim on the direction of the petitioner No.3 and that thereafter, the petitioner No.3 was also apprehended. Page No.# 7/7 11. The respondent No.3 in the affidavit filed on 21.07.2025, pursuant to the Court’s order had also stated that the victim was picked up and confined at the place and the money was demanded to which the father of the victim expressed his inability to pay the same. Thereafter, repeated phone calls were made to the parents of the respondent No.3 who finally arranged and paid the money. Even though, the respondent No.3 in the affidavit had stated that the settlement had reached between the parties but the criminal liability is writ large against the petitioners in the said affidavit. As such, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR or the Charge-sheet or the subsequent proceedings. 12. The petition is dismissed. However, the findings of this Court will have no effect on the trial of the case. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant