Allowed¶27

Taniram Mingki and Anr. v. The State of Ap

Gauhati HC3 Mar 2025Crl.Petn./225/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceeding under Section 528 BNSS 2023; Sections 353/504/506 IPC held prima facie not attracted from FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. witness statements; amicable settlement by Deed of Agreement dated 07.12.2024 between accused, informant/complainant and victim; Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 relied on; G.R. Case No. 171/2019, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh; petitioners Taniram Mingki, Chow Athabul Namchoom and Chandra Bhusan Rai; petition allowed and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside and quashing of the FIR, Charge-Sheet No. 57/2018 dated 17.12.2018 under Sections 353/504/506 IPC and the criminal proceeding (G.R. Case No. 171/2019) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Namsai. ¶27

Taniram Mingki and Anr. Vs The State of Ap — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR, Charge-Sheet No. 57/2018 dated 17.12.2018 under Sections 353/504/506 IPC and the criminal proceeding (G.R. Case No. 171/2019) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Namsai can be set aside and quashed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Considering that the parties have settled the matter amicably and the materials in the case record, the FIR, Charge-Sheet and the criminal proceeding can be set aside by invoking the power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

From the plain reading of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the facts prima facie do not attract Section 353 IPC.

¶23

Key takeaways

The criminal proceeding of Charge-Sheet No. 57/2018 dated 17.12.2018 under Sections 353/504/506 IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Namsai (G.R. Case No. 171/2019) is hereby set aside and quashed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Mitali Thakuria, J.), decided 04.03.2025, Crl.Petn./225/2024: Joint petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 by the accused (petitioner No. 1, Taniram Mingki), the informant/complainant (petitioner No. 2, Chow Athabul Namchoom) and the impleaded victim (petitioner No. 3, Shri Chandra Bhusan Rai) sought quashing of Charge-Sheet No. 57/2018 dated 17.12.2018 under Sections 353/504/506 IPC pending in G.R. Case No. 171/2019 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Namsai. The parties executed a Deed of Agreement settling the matter on 07.12.2024. Finding from the FIR and the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements that the facts prima facie do not attract Section 353 IPC (with reference to Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), and noting the Addl. PP raised no objection since the matter was settled amicably outside the Court, the Court set aside and quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceeding; the criminal petition was allowed and disposed of.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC040018692024

2025:GAU-AP:289

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Petn./225/2024

¶6

Taniram Mingki and Anr Son of Late T Mingki, resident of Sika Tode Village, PO and PS Sille Oyan, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Chow Athabul Namchoom Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Chow Son Namchoom resident of Namsai PO and PS Namsai District Namsai Arunachal Prades VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Jumgam Jini, Taying Nega,A T Tara,M Rime,Tao Tarin,Binter Picha

¶8

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶9

B E F O R E

¶10

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

¶11

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶12

04.03.2025

¶13

Heard J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. T. Ete,

¶14

learned Addl. PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶15

2. This is a joint application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 filed by the

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

petitioners praying for setting aside of the Charge-Sheet No. 57/2018 dated 17.12.2018 under Section 353/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Namsai (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 171/2019).

¶18

3. Initially the present petition was jointly filed by the accused as well as the informant/ complainant as petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 respectively but subsequently, pursuant to an order of this Court, 1 (one) additional affidavit has been filed praying for impleading the victim, namely, Shri Chandra Bhusan Rai as petitioner No. 3 and to that effect 1 (one) additional affidavit has been sworn by the petitioner No. 3 along with 2 (two) others. It is also submitted by Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequently a mutual settlement agreement has also been made on 07.12.2024, wherein, the petitioner Nos. 3/ victim of this case has given his signatures and entered into the said Deed of Agreement.

¶19

4. Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners, further submitted that from the FIR itself as well as the statement made by the independent witnesses, it is seen that the petitioner No. 1 visited the Police Station to submit an application and on refusal, he simply utters a sentence that “he will see the victim in the Court”. Apart from that sentence there is no other evidence or statement made by the present petitioner No. 1 to fulfil the ingredients of Section 353 IPC. However, thereafter, there was a settlement agreement between the petitioner, informant/complainant as well as the victim of this case and in pursuance to that agreement, the informant/ victim is not interested to proceed further with the case. Even, if it is allowed to be proceeded, the conviction of the accused petitioner No. 1 is remote and bleak and in that case, the same will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Further, the learned counsel for the

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

petitioners submitted that the informant/ victim shall not adduce any evidence against the accused petitioner No. 1, even if the case is further proceeded. Accordingly, Mr. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the settlement agreement between the parties viz-a-viz the statement made by the witnesses as well as in the FIR, it is seen that there is no ingredients to attract Section 353 IPC, which is a Non-Bailable Offence and therefore, he submits that this is a fit case where the present FIR as well as the Charge-Sheet can be set aside and quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023.

¶22

5. Mr. Ete, learned Addl. PP, on the other hand, submitted that apart from Section 353 IPC, the other Sections are bailable and in his usual fairness submits that from the statement in the FIR by the witnesses, it is seen that except one utterance of a sentence that “I will see you in the Court”, there is no such evidence to attract Section 353 IPC. He, further submits that as the matter has already been settled amicably outside the Court, the State has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.

¶23

6. From the plain reading of the FIR and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is seen that prima facie does not attract a case under Section 353 IPC. In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra), which is reported vide 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 can be relied on.

¶24

7. Accordingly, considering that the parties have settled the matter amicably and also considering the materials in the case record, this Court is of the opinion that the FIR, Charge-Sheet and the criminal proceeding can be set aside by invoking power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding of Charge-Sheet No. 57/2018 dated 17.12.2018 under Section

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

353/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Namsai (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 171/2019) is hereby set aside and quashed.

¶27

8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Taniram Mingki and Anr. v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taniram Mingki and Anr. 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

Ms Alang Rujuju and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Smti Marbom Lollen @ Tana Nanu Vs The State of Ap

Smti Yanga Mara and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Tenzing Chukla Vs The State of Ap

Techi Tukap Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Shri Sinia Belo Vs Shri Meddak Lona