Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040003952025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./48/2025 Smti Bengia Meming and 2 Ors Daughter of Bengia Kaya, resident of Village Tayang Tarang, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tadar Pakak Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tadar Epo resident of RGU Campus PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Tadar Mama Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tadar Epo resident of D Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : N Rama, Dindo Boni,Teshi Aaku,N Kuma,T Rahul,N Kanu,P Tatam Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 18.03.2025 Heard Mr. N. Rama, 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 Charge Sheet No.22 of 2023 dated 27.08.2023 (G.R. No.42/2023) arising out of Doimukh P.S. Case No.04/2023. 3. The informant, being the third petitioner, is the brother of the second petitioner. The first petitioner is the wife of second petitioner. 4. It is alleged in the FIR that the first petitioner had stabbed her husband, the second petitioner with a knife. The second petitioner sustained injuries which doctors certified to be grievous. 5. Now, all of them have come together to this Court stating that it was a quarrel between husband and wife and the angry wife attacked her husband with a sharp weapon. They have submitted that the husband and wife have mutually divorced each other. The husband has given two plots of lands and a cash amount of ₹1,000,00/- to the wife. The children of the couple shall be in the custody of the husband who will take care of the children and their education and other expenses. Both the husband and wife have submitted that they have resolved their disputes and they are now living separately. The couple have submitted that they do not want to proceed further with the case because further proceedings of the case before the trial court might affect the future of their children. Page No.# 3/4 6. I have given my anxious considerations to 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, 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 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 Page No.# 4/4 vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. Coming back to the case in hand, the husband and wife, though now divorced, have pleaded before this Court that for the sake of future of their children, they do not want the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court. 9. This Court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances and since the injured person himself pleaded that for the sake of the future of his children, he does not want to proceed further with the criminal proceedings before the trial court, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. Thus, allowing such a criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court, would be noting but an abuse of the process of the court. 10. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. 11. The Charge Sheet No.22 of 2023 dated 27.08.2023 (G.R. No.42/2023) arising out of Doimukh P.S. Case No.04/2023, is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant