Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040013652024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./173/2024 Hengo Bam and Anr Son of Late Bachi Bam, resident of New Dari Village, PO and PS Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Dugmar Kamduk, Lokam Tadam,Bate Joel Koyu,Mipe Ete,Kirpok Eshi Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 20.03.2025 Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, the Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing and setting aside the FIR dated 15.09.2024 relating to Basar P.S. Case No.22/2024. 3. On 14th September, 2024, Smti. Liyir Bagra Ada (second petitioner) had lodged Page No.# 2/4 an FIR before police alleging the following facts– a) On the previous night while she was sleeping in her bedroom, she suddenly woke up from her sleep because she felt somebody was pulling her blanket. It was about 12.25 at night. When she opened her eyes, she saw the first petitioner near her. He was allegedly trying to kiss her. When she opened her eyes, the first petitioner, signaled her to keep mum by showing his finger on his lips. However, the informant petitioner raised hue and cry over the incident and the first petitioner ran out of the house. Her husband tried to apprehend the first petitioner but could not. When the second petitioner and her husband went out of the house in search of the first petitioner, they noticed that while escaping, the first petitioner had left his motorcycle at the entrance gate of the informant/second petitioner. b) After sometime, the first petitioner arrived at the entrance gate of the informant’s house. He wanted to take back his motorcycle, but the husband of the second petitioner snatched away the keys of the motorcycle. On that issue, there was a quarrel between the husband of the second petitioner and the first petitioner. c) On the advice of her husband, that night the informant did not return to her house and she went to the house of a neighbour. After that, the first petitioner came to the house of the said neighbour of the informant. He allegedly kept knocking at the door and also hit the door with a spade. In spite of that, the door was not opened. d) In the meantime, the husband of the second petitioner collected some other persons and returned the key of the motorcycle to the first petitioner. He left the place with his motorcycle. 4. After filing of the said FIR, both the petitioners settled their dispute by entering into an agreement on 16.09.2024. Page No.# 3/4 5. Thereafter, on 2nd October, 2024, the second petitioner filed an application before the Investigating Officer stating that she had already compromised the matter with the first petitioner and therefore she wanted to withdraw the FIR dated 14th September, 2024. That application was not considered by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the present application has been jointly filed by the second petitioner and the first petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, which is a pari materia of Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. Page No.# 4/4 (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. From the FIR itself, it can be clearly understood that the first petitioner wanted to kiss the second petitioner. He failed. The second petitioner also filed an application before the Investigating Officer informing him of her intention to withdraw the FIR because she had settled the dispute with the other petitioner. In fact, the offence which was attempted could not take place. In fact, no offence was committed by the first petitioner. My be he is guilty of wrongful trespass to commit an offence. But since the parties have decided not to proceed further with the case, in such a circumstance, allowing such a criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court, would be noting but an abuse of the process of the court. There is no possibility of future conviction in this case. 9. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. 10. Accordingly, the FIR dated 15.09.2024 relating to Basar P.S. Case No.22/2024, is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant