Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040002212025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./26/2025 Marli Angu and Anr Son of Late Domar Angu, permanent resident of Village Puak Gumin, Aalo, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Pinpe Lollen Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tapin Lollen permanent resident of Bogdo Panya Village PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Idak Bam, Yamini Linggi Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 20.03.2025 Heard Mr. I. Bam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, the Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the Charge Sheet No.14/2024 arising out of Aalo P.S. Case No.37/2023 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The informant Mr. Marli Angu was driving a TATA Sumo bearing Registration AR- 12-7364. On 31st July, 2023, a Yamha motorcycle bearing Registration AR-01Q-1479 had hit the TATA Sumo. The driver of the motorcycle Sri Pinpe Lollen had admitted that due to high speed riding, he could not control the motorcycle and the same had hit the TATA Sumo. He also fell unconscious. 4. Now, both of them have come together to this Court stating that the first petitioner being the driver of the TATA Sumo and the other occupants of the said vehicle did not sustain any injuries in the said accident. Therefore, on 23.01.2025, they have settled their dispute. They claim that now they have no enmity nor any claim against each other. The driver of the TATA Sumo also admits that he will not seek any compensation for the damage caused to his vehicle. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 6. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, which is a pari materia of Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under: “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 channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such Page No.# 3/4 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 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.” 7. The offence alleged in the FIR is a minor offence. The incident took place suddenly and no one was injured. Since the parties have settled their dispute, this Court is of the opinion that there is no future conviction in this case. So, allowing such a proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. 9. Accordingly, the Charge Sheet No.14/2024 arising out of Aalo P.S. Case No.37/2023 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, is quashed and set aside. Page No.# 4/4 The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant