Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040002232024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./20/2024 Bharti Apang Tassar and Anr Wife of Shri Tassar Talo, resident of ESS sector, Near Minister Bunglow, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh 2: Takam Dado Tallom Age: Occupation : Son of Late Takam Dado Hall resident of Nyokum Lapang Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papumpare District Arunachal Prades VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Binter Picha, Tao Tarin,T T Tara Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 19.03.2025 Heard Mr. B. Picha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is a joint application under Section 482 of the CrPC, praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of G.R. Case No.607/2019 arising out of Itanagar Women Police Station Case No.56/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, District-Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. On 29.08.2019 at about 10.45 P.M., the petitioner no.1 namely, Bharti Apang Tassar, aged about 27 years, along with her friends had gone to a Restaurant called Blues Bars. They noticed that the present petitioner who was sitting on another table of the said restaurant was taking photographs of the petitioner and her friends. The first petitioner, therefore, asked that boy as to why he was taking photographs. He denied that accusation. In order to avoid further trouble, the petitioner and her friends returned home at about 2 A.M. The petitioner has claimed that while she and her friends were leaving the said restaurant, they mistakenly picked up the mobile phone of the aforementioned person. At that time, the said phone was ringing. The first petitioner picked up the call and then she came to know the said unknown person was Mr. Takam Dado Talom. She asked him to come to her house to take back his mobile phone. 4. Accordingly, the second petitioner Mr. Takam Dado Talom arrived at the home of the first petitioner. The first petitioner sent a boy and a girl to hand over the mobile Page No.# 3/5 phone to him. It is alleged that the second petitioner assaulted the boy and the girl sent by her. It is also alleged that the second petitioner fired a pistol in the air. In the meantime, the first petitioner also arrived there and the second petitioner hit her head with the pistol, which caused injuries to her. 5. It has been submitted by the second petitioner that when he went to the Manager’s counter to pay his bill in the said restaurant, he left behind his mobile phone on the table. After making the payment of his bill, he could not find his mobile phone on the table where he was earlier sitting. He thought that he must have left the mobile phone somewhere inside the restaurant. Therefore, he borrowed the mobile phone of a waiter of the restaurant and called his own mobile phone. According to the second petitioner, his mobile phone was picked up by the first petitioner in her house and she asked him to come over to her house. When he arrived at the house of the first petitioner, he saw that some people were waiting at the entrance of the house of the first petitioner. They allegedly acted violently. Therefore, in self- defence, the second petitioner had to fire some shots in the air from his licenced pistol. 6. Mr. Picha has submitted that the second petitioner fired in the air and no injury was caused to anyone. The learned counsel has submitted that the second petitioner had to do so to save himself from impending danger. 7. Ms. Jini has submitted that on the day of occurrence, the licence of the pistol used by the second petitioner had already expired and in that case, he should have surrendered his pistol to police. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 9. In this case, both sides have settled their disputes by entering into a written settlement deed dated 12.02.2024. They have submitted that they are now living a peaceful life and the criminal proceedings would cause development of enmity between them. 10. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has Page No.# 4/5 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 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.” 11. Now, this Court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances and since the petitioners have settled their disputes, allowing the criminal proceedings to Page No.# 5/5 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. 12. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. 13. The proceedings of G.R. Case No.607/2019 arising out of Itanagar Women Police Station Case No.56/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, District-Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh, is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant