Gauhati High Court
Crl.Pet./694/2025 on 14 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010110562025
2025:GAU-AS:15439
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRINCIPAL SEAT)
Crl.Pet. No.694/2025
1. Thilsinghluo Tuolor,
S/o Late Thilhlulal Tuolor,
Resident of Retzawl,
P.S.-Haflong,
District -Dima Hasao, Assam.
2. Smt. Lalzarting Tuolor,
W/o Lalringum Tuolor,
Resident of Retzawl,
P.S.-Haflong,
District -Dima Hasao, Assam.
...Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
The State of Assam,
Represented by the P.P., Assam.
...Respondent
Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. R. Bora, Advocate.
Advocate for the respondent : Mr. K. Baishya, Addl. P.P., Assam.
Page No.# 2/6
:::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Date on which judgment is reserved : 03.11.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.11.2025
Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A
operative part of the judgment ?
Whether the full judgment has been : YES
pronounced?
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
1. Heard Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.
Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS filed by the petitioners,
namely, Thilsinghluo Tuolor and Smt. Lalzarting Tuolor praying for quashing
of proceedings of Sessions Case No.01/2025 corresponding to PRC Case
No.89/2024 arising out of Haflong P.S. Case No.51/2024 under Sections
354/354-A/506/509 of IPC read with Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no.1
is the accused whereas the petitioner no.2 is the victim of this case.
4. That on 08.06.2024, the petitioner no. 2 lodged a First Information Report
before the Officer-in-Charge, Haflong Police Station alleging inter-alia that once
the petitioner no. 1 tried to molest the petitioner no. 2 and thereafter on
20.05.2024, the petitioner no. 1 along with Daniel Thiek entered into the house
Page No.# 3/6
of petitioner no. 2 and threatened the petitioner no. 2 and her husband with a
Single Barrel Cartridge Rifle. Thereafter, the FIR was received and registered as
Haflong Police Station Case No. 51/2024 under Section 354/354-A/506/509 of
IPC read with Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
After completion of investigation, the Investigating officer laid charge sheet
bearing Charge Sheet No. 32/2024 dated 30.06.2024 under Section 354/354-
A/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner no. 1.
5. After receipt of the impugned Charge Sheet dated 30.06.2024, the
Learned JMFC, Dima Hasao at Haflong took cognizance of offences under
Section 354/354(a)/506/509 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner no. 1.
Thereafter the case was transferred to Ld. CJM, Dima Hasao and then the same
was transferred to SDJM(S), Dima Hasao and thereafter, vide Order dated
21.12.2024 passed by the Learned SDJM (S), Dima Hasao at Haflong, the case
was committed to the court of Learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao at Haflong
and the case was registered as Sessions case No. 01/2025 and the case is
posted on 21.06.2024 for consideration of Charge.
6. It is stated that the petitioners are relatives and are residents of the same
neighborhood. The petitioner No. 1 is the Gaonbura of Retzawl village, Haflong,
Dima Hasao. The petitioner no. 2 specifically states that due to some family
grudges and misunderstanding and on being instigated/advised by her husband
who had some money dispute with the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2
instituted the instant proceeding against the petitioner no. 1 to teach him a
lesson for lifetime. However, due to intervention of the other family members
Page No.# 4/6
and the society as well, the petitioner no. 2 and her husband understood the
mistake in instituting the proceeding against the petitioner no. 1 and therefore,
the petitioner no. 2 does not want to proceed with the case anymore. It is
stated that the both the petitioners belong to Hmar Community (Tuolor clan)
and after amicable settlement, a ritual was performed as per their customary
law to leave peacefully. The petitioner no. 2 further states that the alleged gun
purported to be used for commission of alleged offence, was given to her
husband for repairing as her husband is a mechanic. The petitioner no. 1 states
that the alleged gun was not used by him as alleged and the same was not
recovered from his possession which is also apparent from the impugned
Charge Sheet.
7. After realizing the fault, the petitioners approached the concerned
Investigating Officer to close the case against the petitioner no. 1, however the
Investigating Officer denied to do so and advised them to approach the Court.
Thereafter, the petitioners jointly tried to move an application before the
Learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao. However the same was not accepted as
the offences are non-compoundable in nature. As such, both the petitioners
have jointly approached this Court to set aside the proceeding in Sessions Case
No. 01/2025 as proceeding with the case will be nothing but a sheer waste of
time of Hon'ble Court.
8. The instant petition has been jointly preferred by the accused person as
well as the alleged victim.
Page No.# 5/6
9. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another , reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that "the High
Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the
ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High court shall be
well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
10. Further, in the case of Narender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab &
Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
when the parties have reached the settlement and when the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal cases would
be futile, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set
aside the criminal proceeding in order to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the abuse of the process of any Court in non-compoundable cases,
when the complainant does not want to continue with their own case after their
settlement outside the Court. It is further held that "when the parties have
reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:- (i)
ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While
exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the
aforesaid two objectives."
Page No.# 6/6
11. Here in the instant case, it is seen that though the allegation brought
against the accused/petitioner is of serious nature, but both the accused and
the victim have settled the matter as per the customs of their community and
hence, it can be held that the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak as
it is unlikely that the petitioner no.2, i.e. the victim, will depose against the
accused/petitioner no. 1 and in that event allowing the proceeding to continue
before the learned Court below would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
12. In view of above, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be
met if the petition is allowed. Therefore, I find that this is fit case where the
extra-ordinary power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 can be invoked to quash
the proceeding pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dima hasao
at Haflong. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The F.I.R. of Haflong PS
Case No. 51/2024, under Sections 354/354-A/506/509 of IPC read with Section
27 of Arms Act, 1959 as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in Sessions
Case No.01/2025 pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dima
Hasao at Haflong stand set aside and quashed.
13. In terms of the above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
