Crl.Petn./251/2025 of Dilip Siram and Anr Vs The State of AP on 17 March 2026

ORDER

18.03.2026 Heard Mr. B. Taipodia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This joint application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been jointly preferred by the informant/petitioner No. 1 and the accused/petitioner No. 2, praying for quashing and setting aside of G.R. Case No. 725/2024 arising out of Chimpu P.S. Case No. 47/2024, registered under Sections 331(3)/305(a) of BNS, as well as the charge-sheet vide C.S. No. 11/2025 dated 12.03.2025 against the accused/present petitioner No. 2, which is pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is the informant, and petitioner No. 2 is the alleged accused in the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 725/2024 arising out of Chimpu P.S. Case No. 47/2024.

4. The brief fact leading to the filing of the present petition is that petitioner No. 1/informant lodged a written FIR on 08.07.2024 stating that his LPG cylinder had been stolen from his building located near KV No. 2, Gohpur Tinali, Chimpu, Itanagar. Accordingly, on receipt of the FIR, the aforesaid Chimpu P.S. Case No. 47/2024, under Sections 331(3)/305(a) of BNS was registered against the accused/petitioner No. 2. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge- sheet was filed against the accused/petitioner No. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 331(3)/305(a) of the BNS. However, the trial of the case is yet to begin.

5. Mr. Taipodia, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that during the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably settled the matter outside the court and executed a Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 04.11.2025. He further submitted that petitioner No. 1 (informant) has expressed that he is not willing to proceed with the matter any further, as the incident is only regarding the missing of one LPG cylinder, which was already been recovered and returned to him immediately after lodging of FIR. Further, petitioner No. 1 has no grievance against the accused (petitioner No. 2) and does not wish to pursue the matter any further. However, as the offence registered against the accused/petitioner No. 2 is non-compoundable offence, the informant has expressed that, since he has no further grievance, he would cooperate with the accused for filing petition for quashing of the FIR/trial proceedings against him.

6. 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 accused/petitioner No. 2 may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNS.

7. Ms. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and considering that the alleged FIR was lodged for missing of LPG cylinder which was already recovered and returned to the informant and that the informant has no further grievance and does not wish to pursue the matter, she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed.

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

9. The present case arose due to the missing of one LPG cylinder of the informant/petitioner No. 1. However, during the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably settled the matter. Petitioner No. 1 (informant) now has no more grievance against the accused and does not wish to pursue the case. The dispute appears to be 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 725/2024, arising out of Chimpu P.S. Case No. 47/2024, and the charge-sheet vide C.S. No. 11/2025 dated 12.03.2025, registered under Sections 331(3)/305(a) of BNS, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, against the accused, Shri Keni Riram (petitioner No. 2), are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

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

JUDGE Comparing Assistant