Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040015482025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./200/2025 Nur Amin and Anr Son of Shri Abdul Kalam, permanent resident of Village Borchala, PO and PS Laluk, Lakhimpur District, Assam and presently residing at Ganga, near SP Office, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tahir Hussain Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Ajad Ali permanent resident of Village 2 No. Barjarani PO and PS Jinjia Biswanath District Assam and presently residing at C/o Nur Amin at Ganga near SP Office Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Marge Doji, Tenzin Tsowang,Chatung Tajo Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 17.11.2025 Heard Mr. M. Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application has been jointly filed by the informant/petitioner No.1 and the accused/petitioner No.2, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside of G.R. Case No. 1198/2024 along with the charge-sheet, vide Charge-sheet No. 28/2025 dated 15.01.2025, arising out of the FIR dated 19.11.2024, registered as Itanagar P.S. Case No. 219/2024, under Section 305(b) of the BNS. 3. The petitioner No. 1, Shri Nur Amin, is the informant, and petitioner No. 2 is the accused in G.R. Case No. 1198/2024. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.2024, informant/petitioner No. 1 lodged a written FIR against accused/petitioner No. 2 before the Officer-in- Charge, Itanagar Police Station, alleging that he had given a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand only) to petitioner No. 2 for marketing of green vegetables on 17.11.2024. However, petitioner No. 2 did not deliver the vegetables. On being confronted on 18.11.2024, petitioner No. 1 asked petitioner No. 2 to fulfill the order. It is alleged that on 19.11.2024, petitioner No. 2 fled from Ganga Market by stealing the parked Mahindra Supro Pickup Truck bearing Registration No. AS-07BC-7479, owned by petitioner No. 1, and fled to Assam. Based on the FIR, the police registered Itanagar P.S. Case No. 219/2024, under Section 305(b) of the BNS. Upon completion of Page No.# 3/5 investigation, the case was charge-sheeted under Section 305(b) of the BNS against accused/petitioner No. 2, and the case is now pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 5. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that immediately after lodging the FIR, informant/ petitioner No. 1 realized that accused/petitioner No. 2 had in fact not stolen his vehicle, and that the FIR was lodged due to a misunderstanding. He failed to inform the police in time to withdraw the FIR. In the meantime, the Investigating Officer had already submitted the charge-sheet. Since the offence charge-sheeted against accused/petitioner No. 2 is non-compoundable, the parties entered into a mutual agreement dated 09.05.2025, wherein, petitioner No. 1/informant clarified that due to a misunderstanding he had lodged the FIR believing that accused/petitioner No. 2 had stolen his vehicle and fled to Assam. The mutual agreement further states that since the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties, petitioner No. 1/informant has no further grievance against accused/petitioner No. 2 and does not wish to pursue the matter any further. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the matter has been amicably settled and there is no likelihood of conviction, the case against petitioner No. 2 may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that although the case has been charge-sheeted against accused/petitioner No. 2 under Section 305(b) of the BNS, considering that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the criminal proceedings is allowed. Page No.# 4/5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have also perused the record. 9. From the submissions and records, it appears that the dispute arose out of a misunderstanding between informant/petitioner No. 1 and accused/petitioner No. 2 after petitioner No. 1 had paid Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand only) to petitioner No. 2 for marketing of green vegetables on 17.11.2024. The accused/petitioner No. 2 did not deliver the vegetables, and petitioner No. 1 assumed that he had fled by stealing his parked Mahindra Supro Pickup Truck bearing Registration No. AS-07BC-7479, and accordingly lodged the FIR. Petitioner No. 1/informant no longer has any grievance against accused/petitioner No. 2 and does not wish to pursue the case. The dispute appears to be personal and does not affect society at large. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be only a remote possibility of conviction. In view of the above, continuing the proceedings against the accused would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of law. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of power under 482 of the Code can quashed the criminal proceeding even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society on the ground that there is settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender. 11. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in[(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in[(2014) 6 SCC 466], as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (supra), where the Apex Court has permitted quashing of proceedings even in non compoundable offence in cases Page No.# 5/5 involved in private disputes which do not affect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case, where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1198/2024, arising out of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 219/2024 under Section 305(b) of the BNS, pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, along with Charge-sheet No. 28/2025 dated 15.01.2025 filed against the accused, namely Shri Tahir Hussain (petitioner No. 2), are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 13. With the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant