Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020002322024 2025:GAU-NL:69 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./17/2024 SAMSUL HOQUE S/O ABUL HUSSAIN R/O BURIGAON VILLAGE SUTARGAON P.O/P.S- DOBOKA DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM PIN-782440 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:KHOTSO RURHIA S/O KEVIYACHU RURHIA R/O VILLAGE-SOCUNOMA MEDZIPHEMA DIST- CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND-79710 Advocate for the Petitioner : ANGSHUMAN SARMA, MEHBOOB HUSSAIN,LENTSO SANGTAM Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Page No.# 2/4 04/03/2025 This is an application under section 482 of the CRPC for quashing of FIR dated 02.09.2023, which is Annexure-I of the petitioner. 2. The submission of the petitioner is that on 03.05.2023 an FIR file was lodged by one Khotso Rurhia, before the O.C. Medziphema, PS, stating that on 30.05.2023, at around 3 am to 4 am his goods courier vehicle bearing registration No. NL 07-AA-0123 was stolen by miscreants from the house of his driver. The same was registered on 02.09.2023 being Medziphema, PS, case No. 18/2023 (GR 575/2023) under section 379 IPC. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he had purchased the said vehicle for commercial purpose and he is the real owner of the said stolen vehicle, and accordingly, in the registration card of the vehicle the name of the petitioner is shown. The petitioner had engaged the informant/ respondent No. 2 to run the vehicle on contract basis and there was an oral agreement between the parties to that effect, the informant would use the vehicle and pay a fix amount of rupees 1,40,000/- monthly to the petitioner. 4. It is also stated that the informant/respondent No. 2 stopped paying the amount of rupees 1,40,000/- from the month of January, 2023. Because of the aforementioned reason the petitioner took back the possession of his vehicle from the informant/respondent No. 2. However, it is contented that aforementioned FIR has been filed by the respondent No. 2. regarding the loss of the vehicle and the petitioner herein, Page No.# 3/4 apprehending arrest in the said GR case 575/2023 had approached this Court by filing a pre-arrest bail application which was granted vide Order dated 17.10.2023. And the bail was allowed with the condition that the petitioner would appear before the I.O within a period of 10 days. However, he could not appear before the I.O concerned as he has been threatened by the informant/respondent No. 2. While matters were pending thus, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 entered into amicable settlement of the issue regarding the loss of the vehicle on 03.02.2025, which is at Annexure ‘(B)’ of the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2. Therefore, in view of the same the respondent No. 2 submitted an application to the O.C of Medziphema, PS, praying for withdrawal of the FIR and to close the case. However, the said application was returned by the O.C Medziphema, PS, stating that the case is already forwarded to the CJM (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Dimapur. 5. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 appeared before CJM (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Dimapur, praying for filing an I.A for closing of GR case No. 575/2023 and the withdrawal of the FIR lodged before the Medzephema, PS. However, the CJM (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Dimapur, did not allow the said application, stating that the court has no jurisdiction. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 has filed the present additional affidavit, stating that he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioner in the present criminal petition is allowed. 6. I have considered the submission of the learned counsels, Shri. Lentso Sangtam for the petitioner, Mr. Wati Jamir, for the respondent No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi for the State Page No.# 4/4 respondent. 7. On perusal of the records and upon considering submissions of the parties, this Court is of view that the offence in the FIR lodged by the informant No. 2 is under section 379 IPC which is a compoundable offence. Moreover, the parties have already entered into an amicable settlement which is Annexure (B) of the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2. 8. In view of the above circumstances, the FIR dated 02.09.2023 and the GR case No. 575/2023 of Medziphema, PS case No. 18/2023 are quashed and set aside. 9. The petition is disposed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant