Tajen Yorpen and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040018792024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn./226/2024

¶5

Tajen Yorpen and Anr Son of Late Tanya Yorpen, permanent resident of Village Karle, Monigong, PO and PS Mechuka, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tajen Yorpen Age: Occupation : Son of Late Taru Yorpen permanent resident of Village Karle Monigong Po and PS Mechuka Shi Yomi District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

¶6

Advocate for the Petitioner : Binter Picha, Tao Tarin,Jumgam Jini

¶7

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶8

BEFORE

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER

¶10

05.05.2025

¶11

Heard Mr. B Picha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

Hage, learned Additional PP, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶14

This is an application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for setting aside and quashing the criminal proceeding of GR case No. 56/2020 arising of Mechuka Police Station Case No. 10/2019 under Section 419/171(F) IPC pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo.

¶15

The brief facts of the present case is that the petitioner No. 2 alleged that the petitioner No. 1 by impersonating the petitioner No. 2 had casted his vote through postal ballot. In this regard, petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint before the Returning Officer, Mechukha, Shi Yomi District, alleging that when he reached the Polling Station, Karle on 11.04.2019, to cast his vote, he was told that his vote was already casted under Postal Ballot at Mechukha Election Officer. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioner No. 1 had casted his vote by impersonating him.

¶16

On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that he had casted his postal ballot on 5^th April, 2019 at Mechukha in front of all the PB polling team and on the same day he went back to his place of posting to attend duties.

¶17

Thereafter, the Deputy Commission, on 25.07.2019 had forwarded the complaint of the petitioner No. 2 before the Officer in Charge, Mechukha Police Station which was registered as Mechukha Police Station Case No. 10/19 dated 30.08.2019 under Section 419/171(F) IPC against the petitioner No.1.

¶18

After investigation of the matter, the I.O. filed the charge sheet vide CS No. 13/2019 dated 12.11.2019 under Section 419/171(F) IPC before

¶19

Page No.# 3/4

¶20

the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, District West Siang against the petitioner No. 1, which is now pending for trial.

¶21

This present petition is jointly filed by the informant and the accused person, on the ground that they have amicably settled the matter. It is also on record that the petitioners have amicably settled vide settlement deed dated 11.12.2024 and out of misunderstanding the petitioner No. 2 lodged the complaint against the petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, it is contended that as the complainant and the accused had settled the matter amicably between them and therefore, this court in exercise of power under Section 528 of BNSS should quash the criminal prosecution inasmuch as the offences charged are not compoundable under the provision of BNSS.

¶22

The power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is an inherent power and such inherent power can be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding or a criminal complaint but while doing so the court is to follow certain principles. Such power can be exercised, amongst others, when the offences alleged are overwhelmingly and predominantly civil in character or when such dispute arises out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and the parties have resolved the entire disputes amongst themselves. While exercising such directory power it is to be seen that such offences if compromised shall not affect the society at large.

¶23

It is seen from the record that the name of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 is exactly same. It is also seen from the record that the petitioner No. 1 duly casted his vote through postal ballot. In the amicable settlement it is reflected that it was mistake and such mistake was bona fide on the part of the Election Authorities for the reason that name of the

¶24

Page No.# 4/4

¶25

petitioner No.1 and No.2 were exactly same. That being the position, in the considered opinion of this court, as the parties have amicably resolved the disputes and that no offences can be said to be committed as alleged, this will be a fit case to exercise the power under Section 528 of BNSS.

¶26

Accordingly, this petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing the criminal proceeding being GR case No. 56/2020 arising of Mechuka Police Station Case No. 10/2019 under Section 419/171(F) IPC pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Tajen Yorpen and Anr. v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tajen Yorpen 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ariful Islam Vs The State of Ap

Raj Megu Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Yangbiu Takik and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Miss Leena Tallang Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Takot Taggu Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Tame Tarang Vs The State of Ap