Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040016232023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./220/2023 Smti Puyu Bojuk and Anr. D/o Shri Bipu Bujuk, Permanent resident of Village Yatak-Ripa, P.O/P.S Maro/ Daporijo, District Upper Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh and Presently residing at H Sector, P.O/P.S Itanagar, District Papum Pare (ICR) Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Shri Nada Rajen Age: Occupation : S/o Late Nada Taming Permanent resident of G Sector P.O RK Mission P.S Itanagar District Papum Pare Arunachal Prades VERSUS THE STATE OF AP Represented through the Ld. Public Prosecutor Advocate for the Petitioner : Nabam Roma, Chera Natung,B Arun Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 18.03.2025 Heard Mr. B. Arun, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is a joint application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the Charge Sheet No.65 of 2023 arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No.46 of 2023. 3. The first petitioner is a divorcee having two daughters. On 05.05.2023, she had lodged an FIR before police alleging the following facts – (a) She developed relationship with the second petitioner. She says that he had forcefully tried to develop the relationship with her. That is the reason why he often came to the house of the first petitioner. He had given her a proposal of marriage. Initially, she rejected the said proposals for the sake of her daughters. Still then, the second petitioner continued his effort to build up a relationship with her. Finally, the first petitioner allowed and since the year 2021, the second petitioner was residing with the first petitioner in her house. (b) The first petitioner alleges that even after such a long relationship with the second petitioner, he never allowed the first petitioner to meet his family members. In the month of March, 2023, the second petitioner had gone to his native village at Zero and after that, he started to ignore the first petitioner. Her phone calls were also not received by the second petitioner. 4. Now, both the petitioners have come together before this Court stating that the FIR came into being because of some wrong presumptions and misunderstanding of Page No.# 3/4 facts. The first petitioner has stated that when her phone calls were not received by the second petitioner at Zero, she developed erroneous presumptions and she had lodged the said FIR. The first petitioner submits that now they have settled their disputes and they are living peacefully. Both of them have submitted that for the sake of a happy future life, the criminal proceedings need to be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the police had registered the case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, they had to come to this Court for quashing. 6. I given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under 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 Page No.# 4/4 officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (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. Coming back to the case in hand, the dispute involved in this case, is between a mature woman and a man. They have close relationship with each other. This Court is of the opinion that both of them have settled their disputes, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. Under this circumstance, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court, would be noting but an abuse of the process of the court. 9. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. 10. Accordingly, the Charge Sheet No.65 of 2023 arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No.46 of 2023, are quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant