Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040016432024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./204/2024 Mikre Taso and 2 Ors Son of Shri Tamik Taso, resident of Village Rate, PO and PS Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Ijip Taso Age: Occupation : Son of Late Meni Taso permanent resident of Village Torajan PO and PS Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Chogge Nyodu Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Jumchok Nyodu permanent resident of Village Nyodu PO and PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Prades VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Orin Modi, S Taye Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 07.03.2025 Heard Mr. S. Taye, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the F.I.R., dated 20.05.2023, of Likabali P.S. Case No. 10/2023, under Sections 447/384/506/34 of Indian Penal Code; Charge-Sheet No. 16/2023, dated 09.07.2023; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 56/2023, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Taye, learned counsel for the petitioners, that this is a joint petition and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the accused of this case and the petitioner is the informant/victim of the present case. He further submitted that only due to misunderstanding, the F.I.R. was lodged and it is the case amongst the family members and accordingly, with the intervention of the villagers, the parties compromised the matter and amicably settled the matter by executing a deed of mutual settlement. He further submitted that in pursuant to the settlement agreement, the informant/victim and the other witnesses will not adduce evidence against the present accused/petitioners and hence, there is remote chance of conviction even if the case is allowed to be proceeded further. Further he submitted that the case has already been charge-sheeted and the charge has already been framed against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. The entire Page No.# 3/5 incident occurred and the F.I.R. was lodged only due to misunderstanding which they have already settled and without any grievances, both the parties are living peacefully. 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. 4. Mr. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that from the F.I.R. itself, it is seen that there was a repeated demand of money and during investigation, it also revealed that Rs. 60,000/- was delivered to the present accused/petitioners, though there is no mention about the delivery of money in the F.I.R. However, he submitted that since the matter has already been settled and comprised between the parties, the State has no objection in the event of allowing the petition as there may not be any chance for conviction. 5. In that context, Mr. Taye, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the delivery of Rs. 60,000/- was a transaction between the family members on some other counts, which was delivered from the account of the brother-in- law of the informant to the account of the wife of one of the accused/petitioners and it has no connection with any demand of money etc. More so, at present, after the settlement of the matter, both the parties are living together peacefully without any grievances with each other. 6. 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 present petition is jointly preferred by the victim/informant and the accused Page No.# 4/5 person as petitioner No. 3 & petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, respectively. It also appears that they have resolved their dispute amicably by executing a deed of mutual settlement and they are now living peacefully together without any differences. 7. 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.” 8. Here in the instant case, it is seen that the dispute between the informant and the accused persons 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. 3 will depose against the accused petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, and in that event allowing the proceeding to continue Page No.# 5/5 before the learned Court below would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. 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 20.05.2023, of Likabali P.S. Case No. 10/2023, under Sections 447/384/506/34 of Indian Penal Code; Charge-Sheet No. 16/2023, dated 09.07.2023; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 56/2023, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, stand set aside and quashed. 10. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant