Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020002932025 2025:GAU-NL:259 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./15/2025 NURUL HOQUE AND ANR S/O MOZIR UDDIN R/O HOUSE NO. 300, SECTOR A, SIGNAL ANGAMI, DIMAPUR, DISTRICT DIMAPUR, NAGALAND, PIN 787112, PERMANENT R/O KARIMGANJ (NOW SRIBHUMI), PATHERKANDI, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN 788724 2: MONSUR AHMED S/O NAYEEM UDDIN AHMED R/O HOUSE NO.22A BISHNUJYOTI PATH P.O AND P.S HATIGAON GUWAHATI DISTRICT KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN) ASSAM PIN 781038 PERMANENT R/O VILLAGE KUNAPARA P.O AND P.S KALIGANJ BAZAR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM PIN 78872 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : P D NAIR, S R A NASER,G ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 19/06/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Alam as well as Ms. Livika, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 praying for quashing of the F.I.R. in Sub-Urban P.S. Case No. 21/2025 under Section 318(4)/316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as the proceedings in GR No. 180/2025 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland. The petition is filed jointly by the complainant and the accused. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner No. 1 had lodged an FIR against the petitioner No. 2 in the Sub-Urban PS, Dimapur, alleging that on 15.08.2024, he had entered into an agreement with the petitioner No. 2 to open a dealership of his business at Dimapur and he had given Page No.# 3/4 an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- to him with a promise that in default, he shall return the amount within January 2025 without fail. It was also alleged that after entering into agreement, the petitioner No. 2 started to ignore his calls and failed to repay the said amount in spite of constant reminders and therefore he prayed for recovery of the money from the petitioner No. 2. On the basis of the F.I.R., Sub-Urban P.S., Case No 21/2025 under Sections 318(4)/316(5) of the BNS was registered against the petitioner No. 2 on 26.04.2025 and was registered as GR Case No 180/2025. 4. In the meantime, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have already settled differences and resolved their dispute vide Deed of Compromise dated 13.05.2025. The Deed of Compromise was executed between the petitioner No. 1 and the brother of the petitioner No. 2 as the accused was in custody at that point of time. The Deed of Compromise has specifically stated that the first party/ petitioner No. 1 has received the entire amount from the second party/ petitioner No. 2 and there are no outstanding dues and as such the first party will approach the court or police authorities to withdraw the said F.I.R. 5. In view of the aforementioned Deed of Compromise, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 being the complainant and the accused respectively have filed the present petition praying for quashing of the F.I.R. as well as the consequent proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Livika has produced the Page No.# 4/4 scanned copy of the case dairy and also the status report. In the status report, the I.O. of the case has also mentioned that they have been informed that a compromise deed has been made between the accused and the complainant and it has been stated that the issue between him and the complainant has been amicably settled. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above and in view of the Deed of Compromise dated 13.05.2025, this Court if of the view that it will be a futile exercise to continue with the proceeding before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland, in as much as it will not lead to a conviction. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the F.I.R in Sub-Urban PS Case No. 21/2025 as well as the proceedings of GR No. 180/2025 before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are quashed and set aside. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant