Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040020962025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./283/2025 Taying Kalar and 4 Ors Son of Shri Taying Kaku, resident of Model Village, Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tagru Takio Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tagru Tana resident of G Sector Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Vijay Roy Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Bhajan Roy resident of G Sector Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Bikash Barman Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Prabhat Barman resident of F and G Sector Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Miss Runti Das Age: Occupation : C/o Shri Tagru Takio Page No.# 2/4 resident of G Sector Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Jumgam Jini, Taying Nega Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, ::BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 20.12.2025 Heard the learned counsel Mr. J. Jini appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is a joint application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of G.R. No.228/2017 corresponding to FIR No.87/2017 dated 23.04.2017 of Itanagar Police Station. 3. The petitioner Shri Tagru Takio had lodged an FIR before police on 23.04.2017. It was alleged in the said FIR that on that day at about 1.30 P.M., one car bearing registration No.AR-01-H-3455, coming from Bank Tiniali, Itanagar towards Ganga had knocked one motorcycle near M/S. PK Commercial, Ganga Market, Itanagar. The said car was driven in a high speed. Page No.# 3/4 4. In that accident, Miss. Runti Das, a relative of Tagru Takio and two other boys, namely- Vijay Rai and Bikash Barman sustained injuries. 5. After investigation, police filed the charge sheet under Sections 279/337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Today, Tagru Takio, Vijay Rai, Bikash Barman, Miss. Runti Das and Taying Kalar have come together to this Court stating that they have compromised the matter and are no longer interested in prosecuting the accused persons named in the charge sheet. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 8. The guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. -versus- Bhajanlal and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Page No.# 4/4 Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable in the present case. I find that under the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. Thus, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court, would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. It is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 10. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings of G.R. No.228/2017 corresponding to FIR No.87/2017 dated 23.04.2017 of Itanagar Police Station, is set quashed and aside. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant