Imar Lollen and 3 Ors v. The State of Ap

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040011552024

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./132/2024 Imar Lollen and 3 Ors Son of Shri Doi Lollen, Kombo Jirdin Village, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Marli Ronya Age: Occupation :

3: Geken Loyi Age: Occupation :

4: Maryom Lottem Age: Occupation VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Jumgam Jini Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

04.09.2024

Heard the learned counsel Mr. J. Jini appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶2This is a joint application filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the CrPC (corresponding Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) praying for quashing and setting aside the entire proceedings in respect of FIR dated 12.11.2023 registered as Aalo P.S. Case No.68/2023, under Sections 353/506/186/189/225 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 34 of the said code read with Section 3 of Arunachal Pradesh Gambling Act.

¶3Marli Ronya was a Probationary Sub-Inspector of Police posted at the Aalo Police Station. He has alleged in the FIR that on 12th November, 2023, some people were gambling by playing dice. He tried to stop them and at that time, ther was a scuffle with him. The informant returned and lodged the FIR before police, which was registered as Aalo P.S. Case No.68/2023, under Sections 353/506/186/189/225 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 34 of the said Code read with Section 3 of Arunachal Pradesh Gambling Act.

¶4Now, Marli Ronya and some other people have jointly filed this application stating that they have compromised the case between themselves and they are not interested in prosecuting the criminal case. They have submitted that the entire case arose due to misunderstanding of facts. Page No.# 3/4

¶5I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

¶6The guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. -versus-Bhajanlal and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: "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 channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for Page No.# 4/4 wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

¶7In Bhajanlal (supra), the Supreme Court has cautioned that the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be sparingly used by the High Courts. The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is meant to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

¶8Reverting back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable in the present case. I find that under the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. Thus, it is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶9In the above view of the matter, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR dated 12.11.2023 registered as Aalo P.S. Case No.68/2023, under Sections 353/506/186/189/225 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 34 of the said code read with Section 3 of Arunachal Pradesh Gambling Act, is set quashed and aside. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant