Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040013232024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./165/2024 Lokam Talo and Anr Son of Late Lokam Hangi, resident of Papu Nallah, PO Naharlagun, PS Papu Hill, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Bimal Dhar Age: Occupation : Son of Late Khanu Dhar resident of Ward No. 10 KB Road Latif Path PO and PS Lakhimpur North Lakhimpur District Assa VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Dugmar Kamduk, Bate Joel Koyu,Lokam Tadam,Mipe Ete,Kirpok Eshi Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 07.03.2025 Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. PP for the State. 2. This is a joint application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 filed by the Page No.# 2/5 petitioners praying for setting aside the criminal proceeding against the accused petitioner No.1 in connection with G.R. Case No. 134/2006 under Section 511 of IPC (corresponding to Itanagar P.S. Case No.127/2006). 3. It is submitted by Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioners that both the informant-victim and the accused have jointly filed the present petition. 4. The brief facts of the case, is that, the incident took place during the time of election, wherein, it was alleged that some of the people had extorted money from some of the shop keepers but there was no such incident took place as the informant-victim did not lodge any complaint against the accused petitioner No.1. Accordingly, matter has already been settled between the parties. However, there is no such deed of settlement agreement executed by the parties. Mr. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that from the evidence adduced by PW Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4, it is seen that that the informant-victim never lodged any complaint against the accused petitioner No. 1, however, it is the fact that some boys came to the shop of the informant- victim and asked him to put his signature on the paper without even disclosing the contents of the same, due to fear, the informant-victim gave his signature on a plain paper, which was subsequently shown as the FIR lodged by him. PW. 3 also submitted that they were not aware of the demand of money by the accused petitioner No. 1. He further submits that all the PWs were subsequently declared hostile by the prosecution and they were also cross-examined to the extent. Accordingly, he submitted that from the evidence adduced by the accused petitioner No. 2 and other witnesses, it is seen that the chance of conviction is remote and bleak rather it will be an abuse of the process of the Court, if the case is allowed to be proceeded further. Moreso, it will be a harassment for the accused petitioner for no fault as he had to appear before Page No.# 3/5 the learned Trial Court on each and every day without his involvement into any offence. Accordingly, Mr. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR as well as the Charge-Sheet may be set aside and quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ete, learned Addl. PP raised objection and submitted that there is no settlement agreement and the same is also not available in the case record. He further submitted that from a plain reading of the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and merely for the witnesses turning hostile, there cannot be any adverse effect. He also submits that only considering the evidence adduced by the PWs, the entire proceeding cannot be quashed and the Court is not supposed to appreciate the evidence while dealing with a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. In support of his submission, he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported vide (2023) SCC OnLine 765 and emphasized upon Paragraph No. 17 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “17…This is a case where the charges have been framed and the accused are awaiting trial. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous (except to the extent we propose to mention before concluding our judgment) that allowing the trial to progress might cause a miscarriage of justice. This is also not an appropriate stage to delve deep into the records. It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, ~ conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look Page No.# 4/5 at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to quashing of a charge / proceedings either in exercise of jurisdiction under section 397, Cr. PC or section 482, Cr. PC or together, as the case may be, has engaged the attention of this Court many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the precedents on the point, the principles have been summarized by this Court succinctly”. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court expressed the view that while dealing with a petition for quashing, it is not appropriate to go into the deep root of the case and it is not the part of the business of any Court to ascertain the outcome of the trial but as the FIR discloses a prima facie case and the charges has also been framed. Mr. Ete, learned Addl. PP also submitted that it is not the stage to quash the petition invoking the power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. However, he submitted that at best, it may be a case of acquittal but at this stage, it cannot be considered as an abuse of the process of the Court to set aside and quash the above criminal proceeding. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case record, it is seen that 4 (four) numbers of PWs have already been examined by the prosecution and it is also a fact that the petition does not support with any deed of settlement agreement. But, from the evidence on record of the informant-victim viz-a-viz and other PWs, it is seen that the matter may be compromised and the PWs specially the informant-victim did not adduce any Page No.# 5/5 evidence against the accused petitioner No. 1 rather as per him he never lodged any FIR against the accused petitioner No. 1 and he does not know about the contents of the FIR. However, it is admitted by him that he put his signature on a paper without even knowing about the contents of the same. From the statement of the evidence of the PWs, it is seen that chances of conviction in the present case is very remote and bleak even if the case is allowed to be proceeded further or even if other PWs may be allowed to examine rather, all the PWs were declared hostile by the prosecution. However, it cannot be denied that the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence on the basis of which the investigation was completed and Charge-Sheet was also filed. 8. Considering all aspect of the case specially considering the evidence adduced by the PWs, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where entire criminal proceeding against the accused petitioner No. 1 in connection with G.R. Case No. 134/2006 under Section 511 of IPC (corresponding to Itanagar P.S. Case No.127 /2006) is liable to be set aside and quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding against the accused petitioner No. 1 in connection with G.R. Case No. 134/2006 under Section 511 of IPC (corresponding to Itanagar P.S. Case No.127/2006) stands set aside and quashed. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant