Allowed¶43

Miss Choki Yani and 2 Ors. v. The State of Ap

Gauhati HC17 Mar 2025Crl.Petn./50/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR under S.528 BNSS 2023 (pari materia S.482 CrPC) on ground of compromise/settlement between first informant and alleged offenders — first informant joined by the woman who allegedly assaulted her — Bhajan Lal guidelines (AIR 1992 SC 604) relied upon — abuse of process — FIR dated 06.06.2016, Itanagar W.P.S. Case No.47/2016, G.R. No.404/2016 — rape and abduction allegations, Papum Pare/Naharlagun/Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh — Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench — Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia — order dated 18.03.2025 — Crl.Petn./50/2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR dated 06.06.2016 (Itanagar W.P.S. Case No.47 of 2016; G.R. No.404/2016) quashed and set aside; Criminal Petition disposed of ¶43

Miss Choki Yani and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal petition allowed; criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR dated 06.06.2016 (Itanagar W.P.S. Case No.47 of 2016; G.R. No.404/2016) quashed and set aside; Criminal Petition disposed of

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR dated 06.06.2016 registered as Itanagar W.P.S. Case No.47 of 2016 (G.R. No.404/2016) should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, in view of the settlement claimed by the parties

¶18

Court's answer

Since the parties have settled their disputes, the Court held there is no possibility of future conviction in this case, and allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be an abuse of the process of the court

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The case is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, and therefore the criminal petition is allowed

¶41

Key takeaways

The criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR dated 06.06.2016 registered as Itanagar W.P.S. Case No.47 of 2016 (G.R. No.404/2016) are quashed and set aside, and the Criminal Petition is disposed ofratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench), Parthivjyoti Saikia J — Crl.Petn. No. 50/2025, decided 18.03.2025. A joint application under S. 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (stated to be pari materia with S. 482 CrPC) was moved by Miss Choki Yani, the first informant, together with Smti Nabam Jarnia (wife of Nabam Jenny, the man whom the first informant's FIR accused of kidnapping and raping her on 23.02.2016 near Dikrong River) and Smti Toko Nem, seeking quashing of the FIR dated 06.06.2016 registered as Itanagar W.P.S. Case No. 47 of 2016 (G.R. No. 404/2016). The FIR also recorded that on 01.06.2016 the second petitioner, with two other women, took the first informant from Logun Bridge, confined her in the house of a Junior Engineer called Toko Lento, assaulted her and forcibly took her signature on papers. All petitioners stated that everything was resolved, they were living peacefully, and they did not want the case to proceed. Considering the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Court held that, the parties having settled their disputes, there was no possibility of future conviction and allowing the proceeding to continue before the trial court would be an abuse of the process of the court. Criminal petition allowed; the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR were quashed and set aside; petition disposed of.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040003972025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn./50/2025

¶5

Miss Choki Yani and 2 Ors

¶6

Daughter of Shri Choki Abing, a resident of Dam Site Forest Colony, PO Naharlagun, PS Papu Hill, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Nabam Jarnia Age: Occupation : Shri Nabam Jenny resident of Amba Village PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

3: Smti Toko Nem Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Toko Lento resident of Mob-II PO and Ps Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : N Rama, Dindo Boni,Teshi Aaku,T Rahul,N Kuma,N Kanu,P Tatam

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

:: BEFORE ::

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

18.03.2025

¶17

Heard Mr. N. Rama, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, 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 06.06.2016 registered as Itanagar W.P.S. Case No.47 of 2016 (G.R. No.404/2016).

¶19

3. On 06.06.2016, the first petitioner had lodged an FIR before police alleging the following facts –

¶20

(a) On 23.02.2016 at about 7.30 P.M., a person called Nabam Jenny, the husband of the second petitioner, had kidnapped her from Nirjuli, while she was enjoying a festival. She was initially taken towards Doimukh in his car. He allegedly tore apart her trousers and inner garment and thereafter committed rape upon her near Dikrong River. Thereafter, she was dropped at the house of Miss Kabak Yano at Itanagar. The first petitioner did not tell anyone about the aforesaid facts.

¶21

(b) She did not even lodge FIR before police. Taking advantage of that situation, Nabam Jenny gave her a proposal of marriage saying that he was an unmarried person. Later on, the first petitioner came to know that the said person was married to the second petitioner. Therefore, the first petitioner called the second petitioner being the wife of Nabam Jenny.

¶22

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

Logun Bridge on 01.06.2016. The first petitioner arrived there at about 5 A.M.

¶25

(d) The second petitioner was accompanied by two other ladies and they came in a Bolero Car. The three women forcibly took the first petitioner to Itanagar and confined her in the house of a Junior Engineer called Toko Lento. There, the said three women had assaulted the first petitioner. They also forcibly took her signature on some papers. Thereafter, ultimately, the first petitioner was dropped at G-Extension.

¶26

4. Now, the first petitioner along with two other women who allegedly assaulted her, have jointly filed this application.

¶27

5. The second petitioner has claimed that when she came to know that her husband was having an extra-marital relationship with the first petitioner, she wanted to tell the first petitioner to stop her relationship with her husband. All the petitioners have claimed that now everything is resolved and they are living peacefully. They have stated that they do not want the case to proceed further.

¶28

6. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

¶29

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

¶30

“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.

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

(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.

¶38

(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.”

¶39

8. Coming back to the case in hand, one special aspect of the case that appears here is that the first petitioner claimed that she was raped by the husband of the second petitioner but no action was taken against him by her. Rather, she claimed that the wife of her rapist had assaulted her for having relationship with her husband.

¶40

9. Be that as it may, since the parties have settled their disputes, this Court has reason to hold that there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. Thus, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court, would be noting but an abuse of the process of the court.

¶41

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

¶42

Page No.# 5/5

¶43

11. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR dated 06.06.2016 registered as Itanagar W.P.S. Case No.47 of 2016 (G.R. No.404/2016), are quashed and set aside.

¶44

The Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Miss Choki Yani and 2 Ors. v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Choki Yani 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

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