Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040013662024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./174/2024 Talen Tatin and Anr Son of Late Tamur Tatin, resident of Ruksin Village, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Daulat Limbu Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Jeet Bahadur Limbu resident of Ruksin Market East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Jumgam Jini, Migo Laye,Taying Nega,A T Tara,Tao Tarin,Binter Picha Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 07.03.2025 Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/5 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the F.I.R., dated 10.10.2011, of Ruksin P.S. Case No. 19/2011, under Section 387 of IPC; Charge-Sheet No. 16/2011, dated 12.10.2011; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 19/2011, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the incident occurred in the year 2011, however the F.I.R. was lodged after a long period and at present, the trial has already commenced and the charge has also been framed against the petitioner No. 1. He further submitted that it is a joint petition filed by both the accused (petitioner No. 1) and the informant (petitioner No. 2) of this case. Both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and in pursuant to that amicable settlement, they also entered into a deed of settlement agreement, which is annexed along with the petition, wherein it is stated that only due to misunderstanding, the F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner No. 2 against the petitioner No. 1. He further submitted that since the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties, the petitioner No. 2, i.e. the informant/victim, is not interested to proceed with the case further and in that event, the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak even if the case is allowed to be proceeded further. Rather, it will be an abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, he submitted that it is a fit case wherein the entire criminal proceeding, including the F.I.R. and the Charge-Sheet, may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of BNSS. Page No.# 3/5 4. In support of his submission, Mr. Jini also relied on a decision of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Crl. Petn. No. 08/2021 (Jelly Pagia Dolo & Ors. Vs. State of AP), reported in 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 1045, wherein also, similar kind of case was set aside and quashed considering the settlement of the parties and also considering the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2014) 10 SCC 303] & State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [(2019) 5 SCC 688]. 5. Mr. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that it is a case of demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs in the name of NSCN(K) Organization and during the course of investigation, it revealed that the said demand for money was made by using 2 (two) mobile handsets with 2 (two) different SIM Cards, which were also seized during the investigation. However, he submitted that since the matter has already been settled between the parties, the State has no objection in the event of allowing the petition as there may not be any chance for conviction. 6. In that context, Mr. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that though 2 (two) mobile handsets, along with 2 (two) SIM Cards, were seized in connection with this case, but the SMS, through which the money was allegedly demanded, is not the part of the case of the prosecution. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the materials available on record and it is seen that the Page No.# 4/5 present petition is jointly preferred by the victim/informant and the accused person as petitioner No. 2 & petitioner No. 1, respectively. It also appears that they have resolved their dispute amicably by executing a deed of mutual settlement and they are now living peacefully without any differences. 8. In the case of Narender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and when the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal cases would be futile, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the criminal proceeding in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court in non-compoundable cases, when the complainant does not want to continue with their own case after their settlement outside the Court. It is further held that “when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:- (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.” 9. Here in the instant case, it is seen that the dispute between the informant and the accused person has arisen due to misunderstanding and they have resolved their dispute amicably by executing a deed of mutual settlement and hence, it can be held that the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak as it is unlikely that the informant/petitioner No. 2 will depose against the accused Page No.# 5/5 petitioner No. 1, and in that event allowing the proceeding to continue before the learned Court below would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 10. Under the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be meted out if the petition is allowed and therefore I find that this is fit case where the extra-ordinary power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 can be invoked to quash the proceeding pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The F.I.R., dated 10.10.2011, of Ruksin P.S. Case No. 19/2011, under Section 387 of IPC; Charge-Sheet No. 16/2011, dated 12.10.2011; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 19/2011, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, stand set aside and quashed. 11. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant