Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040009132024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./105/2024 Bayir Yomgam and 2 Ors Son of Shri Karba Yomgam, Village Yomcha, PO and PS Yomcha, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 2: Marge Basar Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tomar Basar Village Soi PO and PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh 3: Jejum Dugi Age: Occupation : Son of Late Taje Dugi Village Dugi PO and PS Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Kago Taja, K Tagyang Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 30.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. K. Taja, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Though, this application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, as same was filed after coming into force of BNSS, 2023, it is treated to be an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. 3. By filing the present joint application, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the FIR dated 14.10.2023 and the criminal proceedings which ensued after filing of the said FIR by petitioner No. 3, namely, Jejum Dugi against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Bayir Yomgam and Marge Basar respectively. 4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are as follows:- (i) That on 14.10.2023, the petitioner No. 3, namely, Jejum Dugi had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Chimpu Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 14.10.2023, some miscreants committed theft of the mobile handset of his sister-in-law from his grocery shop. On receipt of the said FIR, Chimpu P.S. Case No. 61/2023 was registered under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was initiated. (ii) Ultimately, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 380/34 of the Indian Penal Page No.# 3/5 Code in G.R. Case No. 844/2023 which is presently pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had picked up the mobile phone from the grocery shop of the petitioner No. 3 out of temptation, however, now the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have also compensated the petitioner No. 3 by paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and, all of them have entered into a deed of amicable settlement on 28th of October, 2023 for not pursuing the pending criminal proceeding against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, there is bleak chance of pending criminal proceeding resulting in conviction and it would be only wastage of judicial time to continue with the said proceeding. He also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “State Of Madhya Pradesh -Vs- Laxmi Narayan” reported in “(2019) 5 SCC 688” where the Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for invoking the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the criminal cases. He submits that settlement has arrived and the pending criminal case is at its initial stage before the Trial Court and as there is no hope of conviction, the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be invoked and the criminal proceeding may be quashed. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that both the parties have entered into an agreement and as the matter Page No.# 4/5 relates to theft of a mobile phone only and the victim has been compensated. Further, she submits that there is bleak chance of conviction in the criminal petition against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, hence, it would be futile to proceed with the said case and, therefore, she raises no objection against the prayer of the petitioners. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the materials available on record including the deed of settlement dated 28th of October, 2023 arrived at between the petitioners. 10. As the informant of the FIR lodged in the criminal case is a co-petitioner in this instant criminal petition and as from the settlement arrived at between the parties, it appears that the victim has also been compensated by the accused petitioners by paying Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) for buying a new mobile. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Cout is also of considered opinion that there is a bleak chance of the criminal case pending against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 ending in conviction and, therefore, it would be a futile exercise to proceed with the criminal trial in view of the amicable settlement reached between the parties. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be invoked for quashing the criminal proceeding arising out of Chimpu P.S. Case No. 61/2023. 13. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding of G.R. Case No. 844/2023, pending before the Court of learned CJM, Yupia which arose out of the FIR dated 14.10.2023 filed by the petitioner No. 3 (corresponding to Chimpu P.S. Case No. Page No.# 5/5 61/2023) is hereby quashed. 14. This criminal petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant