Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040003972025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./50/2025 Miss Choki Yani and 2 Ors Daughter of Shri Choki Abing, a resident of Dam Site Forest Colony, PO Naharlagun, PS Papu Hill, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Nabam Jarnia Age: Occupation : Shri Nabam Jenny resident of Amba Village PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Smti Toko Nem Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Toko Lento resident of Mob-II PO and Ps Itanagar 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,T Rahul,N Kuma,N Kanu,P Tatam Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 :: 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 Mr. T. Ete, 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 06.06.2016 registered as Itanagar W.P.S. Case No.47 of 2016 (G.R. No.404/2016). 3. On 06.06.2016, the first petitioner had lodged an FIR before police alleging the following facts – (a) On 23.02.2016 at about 7.30 P.M., a person called Nabam Jenny, the husband of the second petitioner, had kidnapped her from Nirjuli, while she was enjoying a festival. She was initially taken towards Doimukh in his car. He allegedly tore apart her trousers and inner garment and thereafter committed rape upon her near Dikrong River. Thereafter, she was dropped at the house of Miss Kabak Yano at Itanagar. The first petitioner did not tell anyone about the aforesaid facts. (b) She did not even lodge FIR before police. Taking advantage of that situation, Nabam Jenny gave her a proposal of marriage saying that he was an unmarried person. Later on, the first petitioner came to know that the said person was married to the second petitioner. Therefore, the first petitioner called the second petitioner being the wife of Nabam Jenny. (c) This time, the second petitioner asked the first petitioner to come to Page No.# 3/5 Logun Bridge on 01.06.2016. The first petitioner arrived there at about 5 A.M. (d) The second petitioner was accompanied by two other ladies and they came in a Bolero Car. The three women forcibly took the first petitioner to Itanagar and confined her in the house of a Junior Engineer called Toko Lento. There, the said three women had assaulted the first petitioner. They also forcibly took her signature on some papers. Thereafter, ultimately, the first petitioner was dropped at G-Extension. 4. Now, the first petitioner along with two other women who allegedly assaulted her, have jointly filed this application. 5. The second petitioner has claimed that when she came to know that her husband was having an extra-marital relationship with the first petitioner, she wanted to tell the first petitioner to stop her relationship with her husband. All the petitioners have claimed that now everything is resolved and they are living peacefully. They have stated that they do not want the case to proceed further. 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 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. Page No.# 4/5 (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. Coming back to the case in hand, one special aspect of the case that appears here is that the first petitioner claimed that she was raped by the husband of the second petitioner but no action was taken against him by her. Rather, she claimed that the wife of her rapist had assaulted her for having relationship with her husband. 9. Be that as it may, since the parties have settled their disputes, this Court has reason to hold that there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. Thus, allowing the 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. Page No.# 5/5 11. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR dated 06.06.2016 registered as Itanagar W.P.S. Case No.47 of 2016 (G.R. No.404/2016), are quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant