Crl.Petn./252/2026 of Toku Talang Anr Vs The State of AP on 20 August 2026

ORDER

21.08.2026

Heard Ms. B. Mema, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed jointly by petitioner No. 1 (the informant) and petitioner No. 2 (the accused), praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 0005/2026 dated 01.03.2026, registered with Palin Police Station, pending trial before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palin, Kra Daadi District, as PLN Case No. 05/2026 and PR Case No. 05/2026, under Sections 331(2)/351(2)/324(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is the informant/father of petitioner No. 2, and petitioner No. 2 is the accused/son of petitioner No. 1 in the aforesaid case arising out of FIR No. 0005/2026 dated 01.03.2026.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the informant/petitioner No. 1 lodged the FIR against the accused/petitioner No. 2, who is his son, alleging that he entered the premises of the informant after damaging the property and committed trespass. Accordingly, the aforesaid Police Station, case was registered and investigated into. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted on 22.04.2026, and the matter is now pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palin.

5. Ms. Mema, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties, and they have executed a Settlement Agreement dated 10.08.2026. She further submits that petitioner No. 1 (informant) and petitioner No. 2 (accused) have expressed that they are not willing to proceed with the matter any further, as the incident arose due to a misunderstanding between the parties. Further, petitioner No. 1 has no grievance against petitioner No. 2 and does not wish to pursue the matter any further.

6. She further submits that the offence under Section 351(2) is compoundable in nature, whereas the offences under Sections 331(2) and 324(3) of the BNS are non-compoundable.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the matter has been amicably settled and there is no likelihood of conviction, the proceedings against petitioner No. 2 may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS.

8. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and considering that the incident allegedly occurred due to some misunderstanding between the father and son and that informant/petitioner No. 1 has no further grievance and does not wish to pursue the matter, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

10. The present case arose due to a misunderstanding between petitioner No. 1/father and petitioner No. 2/son, wherein petitioner No. 2 allegedly caused damage to the property and threatened his father. The allegations arising out of the alleged previous incident are general in nature, and there is no cogent material connecting petitioner No. 2 with the incidents of the offences alleged, which do not warrant continuation of the criminal proceedings. Further, petitioner No. 1 (informant) now has no grievance against the accused/petitioner No. 2 and does not wish to pursue the case. The dispute appears to be between the father and son, which is personal in nature and does not affect society at large. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be only a remote possibility of conviction. In view of the above, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of power under 482 of the Code can quashed the criminal proceeding even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society on the ground that there is settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender.

12. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in[(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in[(2014) 6 SCC 466], as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (supra), where the Apex Court has permitted quashing of proceedings even in non-compoundable offence in cases involved in private disputes which do not affect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case, where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice.

13. Accordingly, the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 0005/2026 dated

01.03.2026, registered with Palin Police Station, pending trial before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palin, Kra Daadi District, as PLN Case No. 05/2026 and PR Case No. 05/2026, under Sections 331(2)/351(2)/324(3) of the BNS, against the accused, namely, Shri Toku Tana, are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

14. With the above, this petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Sabnam Mepo (SPA)