Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040011792026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./220/2026 Smti Chukhu Nanu Bui and Anr Wife of Shri Make Bui, Village Bui, PO and PS Dumporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. serving at then Inspector and Officer in Charge, Itanagar Women Police Station Itanagar Capital Complex, Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as Additional Superintendent of Police Naharlagun, Capital Region. 2: Smti Oimang Pertin Age: Occupation : Daughter of Bangir Pertin Katan Village PO and PS Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh then Sub Inspector and Investigating Officer Itanagar Women Police Station Itanagar Capital Complex Arunachal Pradesh and presently posted at Donyi Polo Airport Hollongi Arunachal Prades VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented through the PP of AP 2:Smti Tana Yanam Age: 30 Occupation : Wife of Shri Brazil Tana Tara permanent resident of Village Midpu PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Page No.# 2/3 Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Sr. Adv, Dolo Yangfo,Pondit Ronya,Y Mugli,Kirmani Lollen,Khoda Apa,Terji Kamchi,Taba Tokur,Gamken Bam Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 30-07-2026 Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Ronya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Yupia, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh, in C.R. Case No. 73/2015, whereby, after recording pre-charge evidence, charge have been framed against the petitioners under Section 166A of the IPC. 3. In an earlier round of litigation, the petitioners had challenged the order dated 06.05.2016 taking cognizance in the said complaint case and had also sought quashing of the proceedings. However, the said challenge came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 30.05.2017. 4. Mr. Tara, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, after advancing some arguments, submits that liberty may be granted to withdraw the present petition and to explore the remedy of challenging the order dated 19.02.2020 by way of a revision petition. It is further submitted that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage in accordance with law. Page No.# 3/3 5. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, points out the earlier round of litigation and submits that this Court may not be in a position to re-examine the issue relating to quashing of the complaint proceedings once again. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the prayer made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the instant criminal petition stands disposed of upon withdrawal, with liberty to the petitioners to avail such remedy as may be available in law, with regard to the order dated 19.02.2020 framing charge against them under Section 166A of the IPC. JUDGE Comparing Assistant CHECKED & VERIFIED Digitally signed by Jumbi Bam Date: 2026.07.30 16:07:56 +05'30'