Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040007032025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./94/2025 Kalo Dususow and Anr Son of Late Sombu Dususow, Upper Bhalukpong, PO and PS Bhalukpong, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tage Raja Sakrinsow @ Naka Sakrinsow Age: Occupation : Son of Late Khandu Sakrinsow @ Khandu Sasusow resident of Koilabatti Upper Bhalukpong PO and PS Bhalukpong West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Rinchin Ledo Thungon, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 05.09.2025 Heard Mr. R. L. Thungon, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This joint application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for the quashing of charge-sheet No. 01/2024 and G.R. Case No. 14/2021, arising out of Hayuliang P.S. Case No. 08/2021, registered under Sections 379/384 of the IPC, which is pending trial before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hawai, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The prosecution case leading to the filing of the present petition is that petitioner No. 1/informant was awarded a contract by the Rural Works Department (RWD) in Khupa, Hayuliang, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh. For execution of the said work, he had engaged an excavator machine at the work site. However, the accused, namely Khandu Sasusow @ Sakrinsow (since deceased), and his son, Tage Raja Sakrinsow the present petitioner No. 2, allegedly took possession of the excavator forcefully. On the evening of 23.04.2021, they allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty- five lakhs only) as extortion money to allow him to continue the work and to release the machine. 4. Accordingly, Hayuliang P.S. Case No. 08/2021 was registered under Sections 379/384 of the IPC against petitioner No. 2 and his father, Lt. Khandu Sakrinsow @ Khandu Sasusow. The case was duly investigated and, upon completion of Page No.# 3/5 the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted on 28.09.2024, under Sections 356/384/34 of the IPC against both the accused. 5. Mr. Thungon, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that during the pendency of the trial, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence against petitioner No. 2 and his father. However, in the meantime, the co- accused, namely Lt. Khandu Sakrinsow @ Khandu Sasusow, passed away on 24.08.2022. The case has since proceeded against the accused petitioner No. 2 alone. 6. It is submitted that, during the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute by executing a Deed of Settlement dated 26.04.2025. In the said deed, petitioner No. 1/informant expressly stated that he has no further grievance against the accused and does not want to pursue the matter further. He has also undertaken to cooperate with the accused/petitioner No. 2 for his discharge or acquittal from the case. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The dispute being private and personal nature, and there is no likelihood of conviction, the case against petitioner No. 2 may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS. 8. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has fairly submitted that, in view of the amicable settlement of the matter between the parties, she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the available record. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., Page No.# 4/5 reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that in cases where the disputes are essentially personal or private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society at large, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), can set aside the proceedings if the chances of conviction are remote and the continuation of the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The same view has been reiterated in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466. 11. In the present case, considering that the informant/petitioner No.1 has no further grievance against the accused/petitioner No.2, and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and further, the prosecution itself does not oppose the said settlement, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing with the trial proceedings against the accused/petitioner No.2. As observed above, the possibility of conviction of the accused/petitioner No.2 in the present case is remote and bleak. 12. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 14/2021, arising out of Hayuliang P.S. Case No. 08/2021, registered under Sections 379/384 of the IPC, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hawai, Anjaw District, against the accused/petitioner No.2, namely Shri Tage Raja Sakrinsow, are hereby set aside in the interest of justice. Needless to state that the case against the co-accused, Lt. Khandu Sakrinsow @ Khandu Sasusow stands abated on his death. 13. The accused/petitioner No.2 stands discharged from the case. 14. In terms of the above, the joint petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS stands allowed and disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 15. Let the Trial Court record be sent back forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant