Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040007852025 2025:GAU-AP:614 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./105/2025 Tadu Sala and 2 Ors Son of Tadu Dole, O/o Assistant Engineer (A), Capital Sub Division No.2/B, PWD, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Nabam Tatum Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nabam Tapak permanent resident of Village Apop Sango PO and PS Sagalee Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh presently residing at C Sector Tani Colony Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Tadar Hillang Age: Occupation : Son of Mr Hillang Takik permanent resident of Village Yakhi PO and PS Sangram Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at C Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Page No.# 2/9 The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Vijay Jamoh, Bakar Dulom,B Padung Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 22-05-2025 Heard Mr. B. Padung, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional PP for the State of AP. 2. This is a joint petition filed by 3 (three) petitioners under section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the GR case no. 44/2001 arisen out of Naharlagun PS case no. 37/2001 under section 379 IPC and subsequent charge framed under section 380/34 IPC. 3. The petitioner no. 1, Shri Tadu Sala, is the informant. The petitioner no. 2, Shri Nabam Tatum and the petitioner no. 3 Shri Tadar Hillang are the alleged accused persons in GR case no. 44/2001 arisen out of Naharlagun PS case no. 37/2001. 4. The case of the petitioner is that on 08.04.2001, the petitioner no. 1 who was the in-charge of the Hume-pipe Stock of Naharlagun, PWD lodged a written FIR before the OC, Naharlagun Police Station, inter-alia stating therein that on 08.04.2001 at around 0600 hrs, some unknown miscreants have lifted the RCC hume-Pipe from PWD Store Yard at Barapani, Naharlagun. It further Page No.# 3/9 stated that one number of Hume-pipe 450 mm/2.5 metre long was lying near Lagun river tributary point at 6:30 hrs. 5. Based on the above written FIR, the police have registered the aforesaid Naharlagun PS case no. 37/2001 under section 379 IPC and investigated into. On completion of the investigation, the IO of the case having found prima facie case against the accused persons filed the chargesheet under section 379 IPC. Upon receipt of the chargesheet, the trial court taken cognizance of the case and altered the offence into 380/34 IPC and framed the charge against the both the accused persons under section 380/34 IPC. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was charge sheeted against the accused under section 379 IPC which is a compoundable offence and therefore, the matter was already settled between the parties way back in the year, 2001. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia has framed the charge against the accused persons under section 380/34 IPC which is a non-compoundable offence. It is submitted that from the content of the FIR itself it is understood that the Hume-pipe which is stated to have been stolen were found lying near the Lagun river tributary point on the same morning, and it was recovered and taken back by the informant. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had no intention to steal the Hume-pipe from the PWD Store. It was the people of the C sector colony, Naharlagun who brought the Hume-pipe with a view to use it for construction of the sector road wall for the benefit of the people of the colony. However, the said Hume-pipe, lying near the river tributary was shown to the police by the accused persons, therefore, they were arrested under suspicion. Page No.# 4/9 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the written FIR was lodged due to the misunderstanding as stated above, the matter was settled between the parties in the same year. However, in the meantime the IO had filed the case into chargesheet resulting in framing of charge against the accused persons. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the meantime, the informant and the accused persons, have again settled the case, and this time by executing a deed of mutual agreement on 10.10.2024. The agreement contains that the people of the colony found that the Hume-pipe was kept unused by the PWD Department, therefore, they took the Hume-pipe on bonafide belief that the Department would have no objection if they take the same and use it in their sector/ colony road repairing. And, since the alleged stolen goods Hume-pipe were subsequently recovered, the issue was settled long back in the year 2001. 9. The settlement deed further contained that as the case was already mutually settled, the parties were waiting for the court to summon for compounding the case as the registered section was under 379 IPC which is a compoundable offence. But the learned Trial court while framing the charge altered section 379 to 380/34 IPC which is non-compoundable offence. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement deed, the petitioner No. 1 informant does not have any grievance against the accused petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and expressed his willingness to withdraw the FIR lodged by him. However, since the learned Trial court has framed the charge against the accused under section 380 IPC, which is non- Page No.# 5/9 compoundable offence and the case is beyond the power of the Trial court to compound the case, the petitioners have filed this criminal petition praying for compounding/quashing of the said FIR and the proceeding of the GR case no. 44/2001 pending before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the case involves with allegation of stealing of Hume-pipe by the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 from the PWD Store under the in-charge of petitioner no. 1 due to some misunderstanding, however, as the alleged stolen article was already recovered and handed over back to the informant petitioner no. 1, the above dispute is between the parties, and it does not affect the society at large. Moreover, the informant petitioner no. 1 does not have any further grievance against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and he expressed that he does not want to pursue with the matter any further. Under the circumstances, even if the trial of the case proceeded, there is no chance of conviction of the accused persons. Therefore, prays for quashing of the said proceeding. 12. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional PP submits that in the instant case, it is clear from the copy of the FIR that the case was registered under section 379 of IPC which is a compoundable section. It is also clear from the statement of the accused persons, the witnesses and the settlement deed dated 10.10.2024, that the written FIR was lodged by the in-charge of the Hume-pipe Stock WCG Sub- division-IV, PWD, as it was lifted by some unknown person. However, the same was recovered from near the river tributary and subsequently, the matter was amicably settled amongst the parties wherein it is stated that the people of the C sector colony, Naharlagun had tried to use the Hume-pipe for repairing the colony road. The learned Additional PP further submits that under the Page No.# 6/9 circumstances, there is no chance of conviction of the accused persons, therefore, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is considered and allowed. 13. In support of their submissions, the learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Lakshmi Narayan and Ors; reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, the relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below: “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. Page No.# 7/9 For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” 14. I have heard and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the documents available on record. 15. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the available record, the informant lodged the above FIR as he received an information that some unknown miscreants have lifted Hume-pipe from PWD Store, leading to the filing of the chargesheet and framing the charge against the accused persons for offence under section 380 of IPC. However, the record reveals that it was not the accused persons, but the people of the C sector, Naharlagun who with the bonafide belief that since the Hume-pipe was lying unused with the PWD Department, they had tried to lift the same for the purpose of using it for repairing the colony road. However, on the same morning it was recovered and handed over back to the informant. Moreover, the matter was amicably settled Page No.# 8/9 amongst the parties whereby, the informant expressed that he has no further grievance against the accused persons and therefore, he does not want to pursue with the matter any further. Under the circumstances, it appears that there is no possibility of conviction of the accused persons, and in such a situation, the continuation of the criminal case before the Trial court would only cause hardship to the parties and wastage of precious judicial time and it would amount to a futile exercise. 16. In view of the above, I find sufficient force and logic in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners which has received the full support of the learned Additional PP for the State. Further, the submission of the parties is being supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Lakshmi Narayan and Ors (supra). In such circumstances, it is now well settled that even though the offence alleged against the accused persons are non-compoundable offence, the higher court viz the High Court or the Apex Court in exercise of their inherent power may intersect the pending criminal proceedings. 17. In light of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since the case has been amicably settled amongst the parties inter se, this Court is of the opinion that the GR case no. 44/2001 arisen out of Naharlagun PS case no. 37/2001 pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia needs to be quashed for the ends of justice. 18. Accordingly, the GR case no. 44/2001 arisen out of Naharlagun PS case no. 37/2001 under section 379 IPC, and charged under section 380/34 IPC pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia against the Page No.# 9/9 accused persons namely, Shri. Nabam Tatum and Shri. Tadar Hillang, is hereby set aside and quashed. 19. With the above observation, this criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant