Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040006222025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./78/2025 Shoney Pertin and Anr Son of Late Batlu Pertin, resident of Ward No.4, Near Pasighat Airfield, PO and PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 791102 2: Rojum Tayeng Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Lombo Tayeng resident of Motum Village PO and PS Mebo East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 79110 VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Kamal Saxena, Eddie Payeng,W Wangsu Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 22.07.2025 Heard the learned counsel Mr. Kamal Saxena appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings of C.R. Case No.20/2023 pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The petitioner Rojum Tayeng is the proprietor of M/s. R.T. Enterprise, which is a registered contractor under the Arunachal Pradesh PWD having its office at Pasighat. The said firm is enlisted as a Class-II contractor. 4. The petitioner Shoney Pertin came to know that M/s. R.T. Enterprises was a Class-III contractor. According to Shoney Pertin, at the time of enlistment, M/s. R.T. Enterprise submitted forged client’s certificate etc. by forging the signature of Engineer T. Jamoh, the then Executive Engineer, Pasighat Division, PWD and Engineer T. Taloh, the then Superintending Engineer, Boleng Circle. The complainant claims that in this way the said firm submitted three Client’s Certificate Reg Performance of Contractor. 5. Alleging the aforesaid facts Shoney Pertin had filed a complaint case against the petitioner Rojum Tayeng. 6. Now, both sides have come together to this Court stating that they have compromised the matter and the petitioner Shoney Pertin has no grievance against Rojum Tayeng. Therefore, they prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings of C.R. Case No.20/2023. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 8. The guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. -versus- Bhajanlal and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: “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 Page No.# 3/4 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 channelized 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.” 9. Reverting back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid Page No.# 4/4 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable in the present case. I find that under the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. Thus, it is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 10. In view of the above, the criminal proceedings of C.R. Case No.20/2023 pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, is set quashed and aside. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant