Rakom Dugi and 13 Ors. Vs The State of Ap

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC040000242025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn./1/2025

¶5

Rakom Dugi and 13 Ors

¶6

Son of Late Lora Dugi, resident of Dumporijo, Gusar, PO and PS Dumporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Choma Doka Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Haffe Doka resident of Doka Village PO and PS Doka East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

3: Deo Lorrah Sangno Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tabing Lorrah resident of Lorrah Village PO Bameng PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶8

4: Nich Nagu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nich Taj resident of E Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶9

5: Tarh Vijay Age:

¶10

Page No.# 2/6

¶11

Occupation : Son of Shri Tarh Tapung resident of Doripu Village PO and PS Chayangtajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶12

6: Mayuk Lamgu Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Kino Lamgu resident of Richi Lamgu PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶13

7: Smti Neelam Shumpi Age: Occupation : Daughter of Neelam Tabin resident of Deed village PO and PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶14

8: Yorum Nachung Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Yorum Dari resident of Gohpur PO and PS Chimpu Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶15

9: Likha Obi Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Likha Hally resident of Sito village Po and PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶16

10: Nabam Takam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nabam Topu resident of Sekhi village

¶17

Page No.# 3/6

¶18

PO and PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶19

11: Tako Adap Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tako Atum resident of Palin Po and PS Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶20

12: Tadang Yada Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tadang Taram resident of Kiya Village PO and PS Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶21

13: Dolang John Age: Occupation : Son of Late Dolang Tayu resident of E 123 Pachin Colony Ward No.13 Naharlagun Po and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶22

14: Smti Licha Nape Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Licha Pekhi resident of Seya Village PO and PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS

¶23

The State of AP represented by the Special PP (SIT)

¶24

Page No.# 4/6

¶25

Advocate for the Petitioner : Tsering Gyatso, Tayom Gamoh,Logsang Yountan,Dejum Tally,Tshering Yangzom Bhutia

¶26

Advocate for the Respondent : Spl.PP (SIT), J Tsering

¶27

:: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

18.03.2025

¶30

Heard Mr. T. Gyatso, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, SIT, State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶31

2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing the CBPS Case No.03/2024 dated 16.09.2024 registered under Section 420/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶32

3. The petitioners Choma Doka and Rakom Dugi being the officials of Arunachal Pradesh Amateur Karata Do Association had lodged an FIR before police.

¶33

4. The State Government has a policy of appointing some people having good quality as a sports person in Government jobs. On the basis of that policy, the petitioners 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 were appointed in the Department of Environment & Forest and Climate Change and Water Resources as Range Forest Officers and Forest Guards.

¶34

5. The aforesaid two informants had alleged that those eight persons did not have any connection with the sports of Karate and they had procured the jobs by producing fake certificates.

¶35

Page No.# 5/6

¶36

6. The petitioners further alleged that the petitioner nos.3, 4, 5 and 13 had also procured jobs in the same way as Junior Engineers in the Water Resources Division of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶37

7. Now, both the informants and the other petitioners have jointly filed this application stating that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding of facts. That is the reason why they have entered into a mutual settlement. It is specifically mentioned in the petition that the said FIR came into existence because of miscommunication amongst the members of the Arunachal Pradesh Amateur Karata Do Association.

¶38

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

¶39

9. The Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is the old Section 482 of the CrPC. 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:

¶40

“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.

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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.

¶43

(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.

¶44

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but

¶45

Page No.# 6/6

¶46

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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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.”

¶49

10. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that since the parties to the case have settled their dispute, 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.

¶50

11. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶51

12. The criminal proceedings arising out of the CBPS Case No.03/2024 dated 16.09.2024 registered under Section 420/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, are quashed and set aside.

¶52

The Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Comparing Assistant

Rakom Dugi and 13 Ors. v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakom Dugi and 13 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

Barkat Ali Vs The State of Ap

Barkat Ali Vs The State of Ap

Smti Yana Rangmo Vs The State of Ap

Tadak Nungnu @ Gapdak Vs The State of Ap

Smti Puyu Bojuk and Anr. Vs the State of Ap

Tosu Borang Vs Chuku Bablu