Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040004372025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./55/2025 Anuj Bhuyan and Anr Son of Shri K Bhuyan, permanent resident of Village Miodomia, PO Moidomia, PS Lakhimpur, District Lakhimpur, Assam and presently residing at Kimin, near Police Station, Kimin, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Rakesh Kumar Jha Age: Occupation : Son of Late Dinesh Jha permanent resident of Village Lawapur Narayan PO Lawapur Narayan PS Mahnar District Vaishali Bihar and presently residing at Kimin near Police Station Kimin Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Chorpok Modi, Tadar Bai,Wanglat Khomrang,Nannu Yubi,Tame Rimi,Maji Dui,Bomyom Ori,Uttam Deka Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 24.03.2025 Heard Mr. C. Modi, 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 the proceedings of G.R. Case No.551/2024 arising out of FIR dated 15.05.2024 in respect of Kimin P.S. Case No.08/2024 under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case involves an incident that took place between a Head Constable of Police and an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Both worked under Kimin Police Station. 4. On 15.05.2024, the petitioner Head Constable Anuj Bhuyan lodged an FIR before police alleging that on that day, at about 8.30 in the morning, the other petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jha assaulted him while the former was doing his duties in uniform at Check Gate, Kimin P.S. 5. Police registered a case being Kimin P.S. case No.08/2024. 6. Upon the same incident, Rakesh Kumar Jha also lodged an FIR before police alleging that the Constable Anuj Bhuyan had unlawfully demanded a sum of ₹200/- from a Dumper passing through the Kimin Check Gate. According to Rajesh Kumar Jha, he confronted Constable Anuj Bhuyan on the aforesaid issue. They had a quarrel. It is alleged that Anuj Bhuyan threw a beer bottle towards Rakesh Kumar Jha. This Page No.# 3/4 FIR was registered as Kimin P.S. Case No.11/2024. 7. Be that as it may, both Anuj Bhuyan and Rakesh Kumar Jha had settled their dispute and have come together before this Court praying for quashing the FIR lodged by Anuj Bhuyan. They have claimed that because of misunderstanding of facts, the entire incident took place. They have pleaded that continuing with the criminal proceeding would not serve any fruitful purpose. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 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 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. Page No.# 4/4 (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. The present case involves a dispute between two colleagues of the same Department. They had clearly claimed that continuing with the criminal proceeding would not serve any fruitful purpose. Under the given circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that since the parties have settled their dispute, there is no possibility of conviction of any person in future. Thus, allowing the criminal proceeding 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.551/2024 arising out of FIR dated 15.05.2024 in respect of Kimin P.S. Case No.08/2024 under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant