Crl.Petn./72/2026 of Chow Jeetu Wailong and Anr Vs The State of AP on 26 March 2026

ORDER

Date : 27-03-2026

Heard Ms. I. J. Singpho, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed jointly by petitioner No. 1 (accused) and petitioner No. 2 (informant) in G.R. Case No. 84/2025, pending trial before the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai, arising out of MPR P.S. Case No. 20/2025 under Section 316(4) of the BNS, 2023, the Charge-sheet No. 27/2025 dated 12.09.2025 and the cognizance order dated 16.10.2025.

3. The petitioner No. 1, Sri Chow Jeetu Wailong, is the accused and the petitioner No. 2, Sri Rajen Chetri, is the informant, in the aforesaid G.R. Case no. 84/2025 arising out of MRP P.S. Case No. 20/2025, Sri Rajen Chetri is the authorized representative of Delhivery Limited.

4. The case of the petitioners leading to the filing of this petition is that on 29.08.2025, petitioner No. 2 (informant) lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- Charge, Mahadevpur Police Station, alleging commission of theft by petitioner No. 1 from the company amounting to Rs. 2,79,897/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Seven only), on the basis of which MPR P.S. Case No. 20/2025 under Section 316(4) of the BNS, 2023 was registered.

5. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against petitioner No. 1 under the aforesaid section. Vide order dated 16.10.2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai took cognizance of the offence under the aforementioned section.

6. Ms. Singpho, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that immediately after lodging of the FIR, the money which was alleged to have been stolen was handed over to the police by the petitioner No. 1 and the same handed over to the company and received by the petitioner No. 2 on Zimma. However, since the case was registered against petitioner No. 1 for commission of non-compoundable offence, the police, upon completion of the investigation, filed a charge-sheet against petitioner No. 1.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that during the pendency of the trial, the parties have mutually settled the matter by executing a Deed of Agreement, whereby the informant has acknowledged receipt of the alleged stolen amount of Rs. 2,79,897/- and has clearly stated that, since the money has been recovered from the petitioner No. 1, he and the company have no further grievance against the accused petitioner No. 1 and does not wish to pursue the matter any further. The informant has further expressed that, in view of the settlement, he has no objection if the criminal proceeding arising out of MPR P.S. Case No. 20/2025, registered against petitioner No. 1 and presently pending trial before the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai, is quashed by Hon’ble High Court.

8. Ms. Singpho, learned counsel for the petitioners, further submits that as the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties, there is hardly any likelihood of conviction of the accused petitioner No. 1 and thus, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. She, therefore, prays for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and the entire proceedings pending before the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Namsai.

9. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, fairly submits that in view of the settlement entered into between the parties and considering that the informant has already received the stolen amount and has expressed that he has no further grievance against the petitioner No. 1 and does not wish to pursue the matter any further, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed.

10. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available record.

11. It is evident from the record that the parties have settled their differences through a compromise by executing a Deed of Agreement. On perusal of the Deed of Agreement executed between the parties, it appears that petitioner No. 2/informant has clearly expressed that in view of the compromise between the parties he has no further grievances against petitioner No. 1 and that he does not wish to proceed further with the case.

12. Since the matter arises out of a monetary dispute and does not have any significant impact on society at large, continuing with the criminal trial before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai would amount to harassment to both sides and an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of law.

13. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that in cases involving monetary disputes and other family matters, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), can quash the criminal proceedings if the matter has been amicably settled and such quashing would serve the ends of justice.

14. In this regard, the notable judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court include:

i. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in cases that are overwhelmingly or predominantly civil in nature, particularly matrimonial disputes, when the parties have resolved their dispute amicably.

ii. Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.,reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it was held that in cases essentially of a private nature, where the possibility of conviction is remote, proceedings may be quashed to promote harmony.

iii. B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, wherein the Court observed that in matrimonial disputes, if the parties have settled their differences, there is no justification in continuing the criminal proceedings.

15. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (Supra), Narindra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supra), B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana (Supra) as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has permitted quashing of proceedings even in non-compoundable offence in cases involved in private disputes which do not effect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case, where the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, should be exercise to secure the ends of justice.

16. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in in G.R. Case No. 84/2025, pending trial before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai, against the petitioner No. 1, Sri Chow Jeetu Wailong, arising out of MPR P.S. Case No. 20/2025 under Section 316(4) of the BNS, 2023, Charge-sheet No. 27/2025 dated 12.09.2025 and cognizance order dated 16.10.2025 are hereby set aside and quashed.

17. In terms of the above, the joint petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant