Page No.# 1/12 GAHC020004552026 2026:GAU-NL:421 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./22/2026 SHRI CHOSEMONG SANGTAM AND 6 ORS S/O LATE THRONGTHSINGKYU, R/O KIPHIRE VILLAGE, KIPHIRE, NAGALAND. 2: MR. THRONGDIBA C. SANGTAM S/O SHRI CHOSEMONG SANGTAM R/O KIPHIRE VILLAGE NAGALAND KIPHIRE 3: MR. SERSATHRONG. C. SANGTAM S/O SHRI CHOSEMONG SANGTAM R/O KIPHIRE VILLAGE KIPHIRE NAGALAND 4: MR. THRELIMONG SANGTAM S/O SHRI LATE TSAZIMONG R/O KIPHIRE VILLAGE NAGALAND KIPHIRE 5: SHRI YANGLITONG SANGTAM S/O LATE THRONGTHSINGKYU R/O KIPHIRE VILLAGE NAGALAND KIPHIRE 6: MR. CHOPIMONG SANGTAM S/O LATE THRONGTHSINGKYU R/O KIPHIRE VILLAGE NAGALAND KIPHIRE Page No.# 2/12 7: MR. TSAPICHEM SANGTAM S/O LATE THRONGTHSINGKYU R/O KIPHIRE VILLAGE NAGALAND KIPHIR VERSUS MR. R.L AKAMBA SANGTAM REPRESENTED BY MR. ISLAND PEACE YANGTHSABA AND ANR R/O HOUSE NO. 66, SARAMATI RESIDENCE, FOREST WARD, KIPHIRE, NAGALAND 2:THE STATE OF NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : TOSHITEMJEN PONGENER, Advocate for the Respondent : KITOKA SUMI (R-1), K LOVITOLI SWU,NEWKALI ACHUMI BEFORE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Advocates: For the Petitioners : Mr. ToshitemjenPongener For the Pvt.Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Kitoka Sumi For the State Respondent : Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, P.P., Nagaland Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement ofJudgment (Oral) : 06.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : -- operative part of the Judgment? Whether the full Judgment has been : Yes pronounced? Page No.# 3/12 J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (O R A L) 1. Heard Mr. Toshitemjen Pongener, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Kitoka Sumi, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, and Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State Respondents. 2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the Complaint Case No. 5/2026 which has been filed by the Respondent No. 1 before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kiphire under Sections 499/441/416/420/503/504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners have also impugned the order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Kiphire in Complaint Case No. 05/2026, wherebynotices to the petitioners were issued by the Trial Court, at pre-cognizance stage, under Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are that in the year 1973, the then town Dobashis had issued a temporary site permit for construction of commercial building bearingSite Permit No. 112 in the name of the present Respondent No. 1, namely Mr. R.L. Akamba Sangtam. It is alleged in the instant criminal petition that the said site permit was issued to the Respondent No. 1 without the knowledge of the landowner, i.e., the great grandfather of the petitioner No. 1, as such the district administration was approached by the petitioners’ side for revocation of the said site permit. It is further pleaded in the instant Page No.# 4/12 criminal petition that on the basis of the representation filed by the present petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire had passed an office order dated 23.11.2023, whereby it was observed that the land covered by Site Permit No. 112 belongs to the Respondent No. 1. However, an observation was also made therein that in the event of any claim for ownership, such claimant is at liberty to file a civil suit in an appropriate civil court for redressal. 4. It is further pleaded in the present petition by the petitioners that thereafter, owing to the dispute over the land covered by Site Permit No. 112, the petitioners approached the Kiphire Village Council Court, Kiphire to adjudicate the dispute as per the customary law applicable to the parties. However, during the pendency of the matter before the Customary Court, Kiphire, the Respondent No. 1 filed a Declaratory Suit before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kiphire against the present petitioners. The said Declaratory Suit was registered as Declaratory Suit No. 2/2024. However, later on the said declaratory suit was withdrawn by the present Respondent No. 1 on 08.05.2025. 5. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 filed the Complaint Case No. 5/2026 before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kiphire over the same matter alleging commission of offence by the present petitioners under Sections 499/441/416/420/503/504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said complaint case was registered as Complaint Case No. 5/2026, which is sought to be quashed by filing the instant criminal petition. Page No.# 5/12 6. Mr. Toshitemjen Pongener, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fact that there is a dispute between the petitioners and the Respondent No. 1 in respect of land covered by Site Permit No. 112 is not disputed, however, said dispute is purely of civil nature and the Respondent No. 1 has, with a view to harass the present petitioners and putting pressure on them has tried to give the civil dispute a cloak of criminal offence. 7. He further submits that, in the complaint petition filed by the present Respondent before the Trial Court no specific allegation has been made against the present petitioners specifying the commission of offence by the present petitioners constituting an offence which has been alleged in the complaint petition by the Respondent No. 1. He further submits that the materials available on record including the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, on 23.11.2023, clearly indicates that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and as such, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioners in the form of the Complaint Case No. 5/2026 pending before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kiphire. 8. He submits that the grievance made by the Respondent No. 1 in his complaint petition regarding putting of bamboo barricading against the disputed land may be redressed by a civil court as civil courts have the authority to issue interim reliefs in the form of issuance of injunctions or appointment of commissioner or receiver or any other Page No.# 6/12 such interim arrangement as regards the possession or user of the property in dispute. He further submits that the dispute between the parties is predominantly of civil nature which is also disclosed in the averments made in the complaint petition by the Respondent No. 1. He submits that in such a situation where civil remedy is available to the Respondent No. 1 this Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceeding to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. 9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the following rulings: i. Branch Manager, Federal Bank, Dimapur, Nagaland v. State of Nagaland, reported in 2023 (3) NLJ 1996; ii. Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673; and iii. Mahar Jahan &Ors. v. State of Delhi & Ors., reported in (2004) 13 SCC 421. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Kitoka Sumi, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the Trial Court is yet to take cognizance of the offences on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 before it. He submits that the Trial Court has only issued notice at pre-cognizance stage under proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023. As such, he submits that this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Page No.# 7/12 Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to scuttle the proceedings of the complaint case at the initial stage. 11. He submits that the present Respondent No. 1 has purchased the land covered under Site Permit No. 112 from the accused No. 8 in the complaint case, namely, Vitokhu Sema, in the year 1995. He further submits that after purchasing the land, the Respondent No. 1 also applied for mutating his name and accordingly his name has also been mutated in the records of right in respect of land covered under Site Permit No. 112. He also submits that the Respondent No. 1 has been regularly paying land revenue in respect of the said land and in the building constructed over the said land he has tenants who are paying rent to him since 1995. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire in the order dated 23.11.2023 has also acknowledged the fact that the land belongs to the present Respondent No. 1. He also submits that merely because the Declaratory Suit No. 2/2024 was withdrawn by the present Respondent No. 1, the petitioners are not thereby given a licence to criminally trespass into the said land and threaten the Respondent No. 1 and his tenants. He submits that the facts narrated in the complaint case by the Respondent No. 1 makes out the offences alleged in the said complaint case. 13. He further submits that it is not necessary for the complainant to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged in the complaint. He submits that what is necessary is that the Page No.# 8/12 ingredients of the alleged offence should be made out from the facts alleged in a complaint petition, which the complaint does in the instant case. 14. He also submits that the dispute between the petitioners and the present Respondent No. 1 is also of civil nature but that in itself does not mean that it precludes any criminal case which is also made out against the present petitioners on the basis of facts narrated in the complaint petition. He submits that the same set of facts may give rise to different kinds of disputes, namely, the dispute may be purely civil in nature or purely criminal in nature or may be both civil and criminal in nature. He submits that in the instant case, the acts committed by the petitioners as alleged in the complaint petition constitute the offence alleged against the petitioners in the complaint petition as such, this is not a case where the facts disclosed in the complaint petition do not make out an offence against the petitioners. He submits that under such circumstances, invoking jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the complaint petition is uncalled for. 15. He further submits that there is catena of rulings of the Apex Court wherein the legal proposition as to the power of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been settled. He submits that the power of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 should be sparingly exercised with circumspection. He submits that as the petitioners have failed to make out a case for invoking the inherent jurisdiction Page No.# 9/12 of this Court for interfering with the criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 5/2026 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kiphire, the instant criminal petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs. 16. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has cited the following rulings: i. K. Jagdish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. & Anr., reported in (2020) 14 SCC 552; ii. Barbeil Khimji Shah v. State of Maharashtra &Anr., reported in 2007(6) Mh.L.J (Bombay High Court); and iii. Jitul Jitenlal Kotecha v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 652. 17. Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that he adopts the argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1. 18. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 19. The Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, has held on several occasions that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023) should be exercised sparingly and Page No.# 10/12 with circumspection. It also held that while considering criminal complaint, whose quashing is sought for, the court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the said complaint. 20. In the instant case, both the parties have claimed their right over the land covered by site permit No. 112, and presently there is a civil litigation pending between the parties in respect of the said land. However, merely because of the fact that the dispute between the parties is of civil in nature, a criminal prosecution may not be completely barred if the facts of the case make out a criminal case too. 21. However, whether the facts alleged in the complaint petition makes out a case for taking cognizance of offences alleged in the complaint petition against the present petitionersis required to be considered by the Trial Court, as it has not yet taken any decision regarding the taking of cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint filed by the present Respondent No. 1, against the petitioners. 22. In the instant case, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the Complaint Case No. 5/2026 even before the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences. Presently, the notices have only been issued to the petitioners at the pre- cognizance stage under the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023 so as to afford an opportunity to the present petitioners of being heard, before the Trial Court takes a decision regarding the question as to whether to take cognizance of the offence alleged, in Page No.# 11/12 the complaint petition, or not. 23. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that if this Court exercises its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash the criminal proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 5/2026 at this stage, it would make the provision contained in the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023 totally redundant. 24. The petitioners have been provided with the opportunity under the statute, i.e., BNSS, 2023, to plead their case before the Trial Court for not taking cognizance of the offence alleged against them in the complaint petition. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is not warranted under the facts and circumstances of this case, as the petitioners would be having the opportunity of being heard by the Trial Court before it decides on the question as to whether cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 should be taken or not. 25. In view of the discussions made and the reasons cited in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where inherent jurisdiction requires to be exercised under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for scuttling the criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 5/2026 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kiphire at pre- cognizance stage. Page No.# 12/12 26. Accordingly, the present criminal petition stands dismissed. 27. However, no cost is imposed on the petitioners. 28. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kiphire. JUDGE Comparing Assistant