Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020004032025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./19/2025 SMTI. JINIYA KEZ RENGMA DAUGHTER OF KEHOYI KEZ RENGMA, RESIDENT OF BAYAVU HILL, KOHIMA-797001, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:SMTI SANGLISHI PRESIDENT YIMKHIUNG LIBERU ARIHAKO RESIDENT OF KOHIMA-797001 NAGALAND 3:SMTI. TSUSOLA VICE PRESIDENT YIMKHIUNG LIBERU ARIHAKO RESIDENT OF KOHIMA-797001 NAGALAND 4:SMTI. LUMHOLA DAUGHTER OF LATE KIUKUMPA RESIDENT OF BAYAVU HILLS KOHIMA NAGALAND-797001 5:SHRI TOKIU T. YIMCHUNGER S/O SHRI THRONGSO RESIDENT OF SHAMATOR TOWN SHAMATOR NAGALAND-79861 Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER, NOCKLEI M KONYAK,KONLI BUCHEM,V ANNE THERIE,ALEMWAPANG AO Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 16-09-2025 This petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR dated 17.03.2025 and all consequential criminal proceeding in G.R.21/2025 in connection with Kohima Women P.S Case No.001/2025 under Section 118 BNS r/w Section 8 POCSO Act and Sec 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR dated 17.03.2025 was lodged by the President of the Yimkhiung Liberu Arihako (Yimkhiung Tribe Women Association) as well as the Vice-President of the Yimkhiung Liberu Arihako alleging physical and emotional abuse of the victim in the house of the accused person/petitioner and on receipt of the said FIR, the Police regis- tered the case under the aforementioned sections. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sen- tiyanger. Also heard Ms. S. Mere, learned P.P. for the State re- spondent and Mr. Pokyim Yaden, learned counsel for the respon- dent/complainants Nos. 2 to 5. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the lodging of the FIR, an agreement has been reached between the parties wherein they have agreed that they would no longer pursue the case and that neither party will pur- sue the criminal proceeding in as much as there has been an Page No.# 3/6 settlement between the parties and the said FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding. 5. The petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the agreement which was signed on 20.03.2025 between the Yimkhiung Union Kohima and the Yimkhiung Liberu Arihako as the first party and the husband of the petitioner/accused as the second party. In the agreement executed on 20.03.2025, it is specifically stated that the parties in the presence of the guardian of the victim, union members and the elders resolved to amicably settle the dispute in good faith and in true Christian spirit of love and forgiveness. It is stated that the parties accept and values the age old friendship between the two communities at all times and even in the days to come. It is also stated in the agreement that the parties agree and accepts that the second party and the accused and the victim during their stay together as family had developed good bonding and affection and the ac- cused and her husband deeply love and care for the victim as one of them and they have always been careful about the well being and right upbringing of the victim. 6. It is further stated that the union members and el- ders after consulting the victim’s guardian and parents had en- tered into the agreement in the best interest of the victim child and all the parties. It was stated that the parties shall not pur- sue the matter in any platform and neither party shall pursue the case against each other further. The agreement has been signed by the General Secretary of the Yimkhuing Union Kohima, the President of the Yimkhiung Liberu Arihako, Kohima and the hus- band of the accused/petitioner. Page No.# 4/6 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submit- ted that the complainant/informant have also prayed for with- drawal of the FIR vide letter dated 21/03/2025 written to the Of- ficer-in-Charge, North Police Station Kohima and the Offi- cer-in-Charge Women Police Station, Kohima Nagaland. The let- ter dated 21.03.2025 was signed by the President and Vice-Pres- ident of the Yimkhiung Liberu Arihako, Kohima. In the said letter dated 21.03.2025, it is stated that the parties have amicably set- tled the dispute and misunderstanding in the presence of the Union members, guardian of the victim, elders, relatives and well wishers and as such, they would not pursue the matter any fur- ther as they are living in peace, harmony and mutual respect with each other. It was also stated in the letter that the allega- tion of POCSO mentioned in the FIR was inadvertently added without knowing that there are no ingredients of the POCSO Act in the present case. Accordingly, it was prayed that the FIR dated 17.03.2025 may be allowed to be withdrawn. It is further submitted that by an order dated 21.03.2025 the learned Special Judge POCSO Kohima has already dropped Section 8 POCSO Act from the charges. 8. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein the Supreme Court has held that, “…..In view of the compromise between the parties there is minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though the nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted the medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused Page No.# 5/6 these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking these fac- tors into consideration was of the view that the compromise be- tween the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is squarely covered by the aforementioned judg- ment and therefore, prays that the FIR dated 17.03.2025 and the consequential proceedings against the petitioner in G.R.21/2025 in connection with the Kohima Women P.S Case No.001/2025 under Section 118 BNS r/w section 75 of the Juve- nile Justice Act, pending before the learned CJM Kohima may be quashed and set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 Mr. Pokyim Yaden has also submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the complainant/informants in the present case. How- ever, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have entered into an amicable settlement with the petitioner and therefore they have willingly appended their signatures in the compromise agreement dated 20.03.2025 without any coercion or undue in- fluence. The learned counsel submits that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have also written to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station vide letter dated 21.03.2025 praying for with- drawal of the FIR dated 17.03.2025 therefore, the learned coun- sel submits that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have no objection even if the instant criminal petition is allowed. 10. The learned P.P. Ms. S. Mere appearing for the State respondent has produced the Case Diary in the present case and relied on the statements made by the victim as well as the inde- Page No.# 6/6 pendent witnesses and submits that prima facie case has been established against the present petitioner/accused under section 118 BNS r/w section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. She has ob- jected to the prayer of the petitioner by stating that a compro- mise cannot be entered into in such a case where the victim is a minor child who has suffered severe physical and mental harass- ment at the hands of the petitioner/accused. She has therefore, prayed that the present petition should be dismissed. 11. This Court has considered the submissions of the op- posing counsel and has perused the compromise deed as well as the affidavit of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who are the com- plainants/informants in the present case. 12. A perusal of the compromise deed dated 20.03.2025 shows that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. In such a case even if the charge-sheet is filed and trial is allowed to proceed against the petitioner, the chance of the trial ending in conviction is remote because of the compromise between the parties. Further, there is no likelihood of the proceeding ending in a conviction and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be futile to proceed with the trial of G.R. 21/2025 before the Court of the learned CJM, Kohima. 13. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings of the G.R. 21/2025 pending before the Court of CJM, Kohima against the present petitioner is quashed and set aside. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant