Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040003962025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./49/2025 Tadar Tadak and 6 Ors Son of Tadar Taba, Tayang Tarang Village, Po and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Byabang Nitting Age: Occupation : Son of Late Byabang Tana Anya Colony-I Banderdewa PO and PS Banderdewa Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Smti Byabang Mala Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Byabang Nitting Anya Colony-I Banderdewa PO and PS Banderdewa Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Byabang Binu Age: Occupation : Son of Byabang Nitting Anya Colony-I Banderdewa PO and PS Banderdewa Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Tadar Pyalang Page No.# 2/4 Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tadar Hamu Tayang Tarang Village PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Michi Nibo, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 24.03.2025 Heard Mr. M. Nibo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, the Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing of G.R. Case No.668/2015 arising out of Banderdewa P.S. Case No.27/2015 under Section 447/448/427/34 of the IPC read with Section 3 of PDPP Act pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia. 3. There was a PWD Warehouse at Banderdewa. It is alleged that on 8th October, 2015, the petitioner nos.1 to 6 had demolished the said building. Therefore, Sri Yorum Nyamdik Thomas, the Junior Engineer, PWD, Naharlagun Division, Capital Complex, lodged an FIR before police on the same day. It was alleged in the FIR that those petitioners had, after demolishing the building, encroached upon the land. 4. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner Page No.# 3/4 nos.1 to 6. 5. Thereafter, the matter came to this Court and on the basis of the order of this Court under the leadership of the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, the matter was settled between themselves. On the strength of the said settlement, the present application has been filed by the informant. 6. It may be stated that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties and the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner nos.1 to 6 agreed to provide some lands to the PWD Department. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 8. After going through the materials available with the record, this Court is of the opinion that both parties are already involved in a land dispute and now, they have settled their dispute. 9. 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 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 Page No.# 4/4 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.” 10. Considering the circumstances under which the present application has been filed, this Court has reason to hold that there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. Therefore, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court, would be noting but an abuse of the process of the court. 11. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. 12. The G.R. Case No.668/2015 arising out of Banderdewa P.S. Case No.27/2015 under Section 447/448/427/34 of the IPC read with Section 3 of PDPP Act pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia, is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant