Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040002042025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./19/2025 Smti Teli Ama and 2 Ors Wife of Shri Teli Natung, resident of Village Solo, PO and PS Sagalee, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Nabam Taj Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Nabam Nan Village Yazali PO and PS Yazali Keyi Panyor District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Okil Ahmed Age: Occupation : Son of Late Sidik Ahmed presently residing at Village Nirjuli PO and PS Nirjuli Papum Pare District Arunachal Prades VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Hage Lampu, Dani Dolley,Joram Sanjay,Khyoda Moses Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 19.03.2025 Heard Mr. H. Lampu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing the FIR dated 07.01.2025 registered as DMK P.S. Case No.02/2025 under Sections 281/125(a) and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023. 3. On the day of occurrence at about 11.30 A.M., one petroleum tanker hit the Maruti 800 car of the informant bearing Registration No.AR-150413. It is alleged that the said tanker had also hit another Alto vehicle bearing Registration No.AR- 01DV2488, which belonged to the second petitioner Nabam Taj. 4. Police registered a case against the third petitioner Okil Ahmed. 5. Now, the informant Smti. Teli Ama and the other two petitioners have come together to this Court praying for quashing the FIR on the ground that on 24.01.2025, they have settled the dispute because the third petitioner agreed to pay the repairing costs of the vehicles. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 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 Page No.# 3/4 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 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.” 8. The offence alleged is an extremely minor offence. The parties have settled their dispute. So, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court, would be noting but an abuse of the process of the court. There is no possibility of future conviction in this case. 9. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Page No.# 4/4 Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. 10. The FIR dated 07.01.2025 registered as DMK P.S. Case No.02/2025 under Sections 281/125(a) and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023, is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant