Allowed¶38

Smti Teli Ama and 2 Ors. v. The State of Ap

Gauhati HC18 Mar 2025Crl.Petn./19/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Section 528 BNSS 2023 inherent power; BNS 2023 Sections 281, 125(a), 324(4); settlement between informant and accused; minor offence; abuse of process of court; no possibility of conviction; Bhajan Lal guidelines (AIR 1992 SC 604); DMK P.S. Case No.02/2025; FIR dated 07.01.2025; Gauhati High Court Itanagar Bench; Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia; 19.03.2025; Crl.Petn./19/2025; Arunachal Pradesh; vehicle accident petroleum tanker Maruti 800 Alto.

What did the court decide?

FIR dated 07.01.2025 (DMK P.S. Case No.02/2025, Sections 281/125(a) and 324(4) BNS, 2023) quashed and set aside; Criminal Petition disposed of. ¶38

Smti Teli Ama and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR dated 07.01.2025 (DMK P.S. Case No.02/2025, Sections 281/125(a) and 324(4) BNS, 2023) quashed and set aside; Criminal Petition disposed of.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 07.01.2025 registered as DMK P.S. Case No.02/2025 under Sections 281/125(a) and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023 ought to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 in view of the settlement dated 24.01.2025 between the informant and the accused petitioners.

¶18

Court's answer

The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 are those laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, whose paragraph 102 the Court reproduces.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The offence alleged is extremely minor and the parties have settled their dispute; therefore allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court would be an abuse of the process of the court, and there is no possibility of future conviction.

¶34

Key takeaways

This is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.ratio¶35
The criminal petition is allowed: the FIR dated 07.01.2025 registered as DMK P.S. Case No.02/2025 under Sections 281/125(a) and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023 is quashed and set aside, and the Criminal Petition is disposed of.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench), Parthivjyoti Saikia, J., order dated 19.03.2025 in Crl.Petn./19/2025 — Quashing of FIR under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 on ground of settlement. The informant (Smti Teli Ama), the owner of the second struck vehicle (Nabam Taj) and the accused driver (Okil Ahmed) jointly petitioned for quashing of FIR dated 07.01.2025 registered as DMK P.S. Case No.02/2025 under Sections 281/125(a) and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023, arising from a petroleum tanker colliding with two cars, on the ground that on 24.01.2025 they settled the dispute, the third petitioner agreeing to pay the repairing costs. Adopting the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 (paragraph 102 reproduced), the Court held the offence extremely minor, that continuance of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court with no possibility of future conviction, and accordingly quashed and set aside the FIR; the Criminal Petition was allowed and disposed of.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040002042025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn./19/2025

¶5

Smti Teli Ama and 2 Ors

¶6

Wife of Shri Teli Natung, resident of Village Solo, PO and PS Sagalee, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Nabam Taj Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Nabam Nan Village Yazali PO and PS Yazali Keyi Panyor District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

3: Okil Ahmed Age: Occupation : Son of Late Sidik Ahmed presently residing at Village Nirjuli PO and PS Nirjuli Papum Pare District Arunachal Prades

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : Hage Lampu, Dani Dolley,Joram Sanjay,Khyoda Moses

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

:: BEFORE ::

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

19.03.2025

¶17

Heard Mr. H. Lampu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶18

2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing the FIR dated 07.01.2025 registered as DMK P.S. Case No.02/2025 under Sections 281/125(a) and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023.

¶19

3. On the day of occurrence at about 11.30 A.M., one petroleum tanker hit the Maruti 800 car of the informant bearing Registration No.AR-150413. It is alleged that the said tanker had also hit another Alto vehicle bearing Registration No.AR01DV2488, which belonged to the second petitioner Nabam Taj.

¶20

4. Police registered a case against the third petitioner Okil Ahmed.

¶21

5. Now, the informant Smti. Teli Ama and the other two petitioners have come together to this Court praying for quashing the FIR on the ground that on 24.01.2025, they have settled the dispute because the third petitioner agreed to pay the repairing costs of the vehicles.

¶22

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

¶23

7. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 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:

¶24

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.”

¶34

8. The offence alleged is an extremely minor offence. The parties have settled their dispute. So, allowing the criminal proceedings 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.

¶35

9. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶38

10. The FIR dated 07.01.2025 registered as DMK P.S. Case No.02/2025 under Sections 281/125(a) and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023, is quashed and set aside.

¶39

The Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Smti Teli Ama and 2 Ors. v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Teli Ama and 2 Ors. v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakom Dugi and 13 Ors. Vs The State of Ap

Kipa Kasung and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Rido Tarak Vs The State of Ap

Kabuk Perme Vs the State of Ap and Anr.

Nimai Santhal and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Ap

Agaim Langhi Vs The State of Ap