Shri Imchatoba Imchen & Ors. vs The State Of Nagaland

Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Keti Imchen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Livika, learned Public Prosecutor, Nagaland for the State respondent.

This is an application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS praying for quashing the impugned FIR No. 0011/2026 dated 06.04.2026 in GR. No. 17/2026, PS-II Mokokchung, C/No. 0011/2026, u/s 324(5)/329(3)/329(4)/351(2)/174 BNS 2023, charge sheet No. 06/2026 dated 28.05.2026.

The brief facts of the case are that Petitioner No. 1 contested as an independent candidate in the Koridang A/C bye-election in the year 2026. During the electioneering process, Petitioner No. 1 lodged an FIR dated 06.04.2026 against Petitioner Nos. 2 to 68, which was registered as FIR No. 0011/2026 dated 06.04.2026 u/s 324(5)/329(3)/329(4)/351(2)/174 BNS 2023.

The prosecution case, as projected in the FIR, is that the complainant/Petitioner No. 1 was an independent candidate of the 28th Koridang A/C Bye-election from Mangmetong Village. It was alleged that at around 7:00 AM on 06.04.2026, one Shri. Watinungsang, s/o Lt. Marnungsang, made a public declaration across the Mangmetong, B-Khel sector calling all males of a certain age group from Sungpo Zünga to Pati Zünga to assemble with daos and spears immediately at Tsumalu sector. Upon the said declaration, around 50 to 70 supporters of the BJP candidate, Shri. Daochir I Imchen, along with 8 members of the Mangmetong Village Council (B-Khel), attacked the house and vehicles of the independent candidate Shri Imchatoba Imchen's supporters using stones, daos, and spears. As a result of the attack, approximately 12 vehicles were damaged and around 5 houses were vandalized. It was further reported in the FIR that during the incident, certain individuals entered a residence and physically assaulted two persons, leaving one person, including a female, seriously injured. On the basis of the said information, FIR No. 0011/2026 was registered and investigated.

Upon completion of the investigation, a prima facie case under Sections 324(5)/329(3)/329(4)/351(2)/174 BNS 2023 following which Charge Sheet No. 06/2026 was submitted on 28.05.2026 against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 68.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the meantime, a meeting was convened by the Mangmetong Village Council on 31.05.2026, which was attended by both the complainant/petitioner and the accused persons. The learned counsel submitted that in the said meeting, an amicable settlement was reached between the parties i.e., complainant and accused persons. The learned counsel has placed on record the meeting minutes on the amicable resolution dated 03.07.2026, which bears the signatures of the complainant/petitioner, the accused persons/petitioners (namely, Alemtemjen, Temjenlembah, and Sunjemkaba), and two witnesses. The relevant extract of the meeting resolution, marked as Annexure-8, is reproduced below:

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the amicable settlement reached between the parties, a joint petition has been filed by the complainant/informant as well as the accused persons. It is further submitted that although Section 174 BNS (one of the charged sections) is non-compoundable, the power of this Court under Section 528 BNSS is of wide amplitude with no statutory limitation. In exercise of such power, this Court can quash criminal proceedings, an FIR, or a complaint even in non-compoundable cases where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute. The learned counsel contended that the instant case does not fall within the category of heinous or serious offences involving mental deprivation such as murder, rape, dacoity, etc., and that the continuation of proceedings despite the settlement would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the criminal proceedings in G.R. No. 17/2026, PS-II, Mkg.C/No-11/26, u/s 324(5)/329(3)/329(4)/351(2)/174 BNS, 2023, along with the FIR and the charge sheet, be quashed.

It is seen that this Court had earlier stayed the proceedings pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mokokchung.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court may pass necessary orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS as it deem fits.

Considerations for the Court: At this stage, it is necessary to clarify the nature of the jurisdiction invoked by the petitioners. The prayer is for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is to quash the FIR, charge sheet, and consequent criminal proceedings on the ground that, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would not serve the ends of justice. The distinction between statutory compounding and the quashment of an FIR/charge sheet in exercise of inherent powers has been authoritatively explained in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when considering a prayer for quashing an FIR on the basis of a compromise, the High Court must give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, the genuineness of the settlement, and whether continuing the proceedings would serve any useful purpose. The need to take care of the subtle difference between the provision of Section 320 Cr.PC and Section 482 Cr.PC was emphasised.

The guiding consideration, therefore, is not merely whether the offence is statutorily compoundable, but whether considering the nature and impact of the alleged offence on society, the seriousness of the allegations, the injury caused, and the genuineness of the compromise the ends of justice would be served by quashing the proceedings.

From the contents of the FIR, this Court is conscious of the fact that the dispute is not merely private in nature, as the FIR was lodged against the backdrop of an assembly bye-election. Therefore, the circumstances require this Court to exercise greater caution before considering the prayer for quashing the FIR, charge sheet, and subsequent proceedings.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is required to examine the actual allegations, the material collected during the investigation, and the specific role attributed to the accused persons, rather than deciding the issue solely based on the number of accused or the fact that one of the charged offences is non-compoundable.

The compromise reached by the parties has not been placed before this Court as a mere unilateral statement, it has been affirmed by the parties, and there is nothing on record to indicate that the settlement was executed under coercion, threat, intimidation, inducement, or undue influence. It is also noteworthy that the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent has fairly submitted that this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS as it deems proper.

The underlying provision concerning undue influence at elections covers voluntary interference with the free exercise of an electoral right and specifically includes threats to a candidate or voter.

The court has to therefore independently examine whether the material forming the charge sheet discloses a continuing public injury of such magnitude that the criminal prosecution must necessarily continue notwithstanding the subsequent settlement.

Upon examination of the charge sheet, this Court finds that no specific overt act constituting the alleged electoral offence has been attributed to the individual petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners are substantially omnibus/general in nature, and there is no material demonstrating that each of the petitioners individually exercised undue influence upon any voter or candidate or otherwise interfered with the free exercise of electoral right. The material does not further disclose any continuing threat, intimidation or interference with the electoral process. The election having thus concluded, there is no material before us to suggest that continuation of criminal proceedings is necessary to prevent any continuing interference with the electoral process.

So far as the allegations relating to damage to property, the record revealed that persons who are directly affected have amicably resolved their dispute amicably. The complainant/petitioner by his petition has unequivocally expressed that due to the compromise he is not willing or interested to pursue the case further.

It may be noted that the compromise has not been placed before this Court as a mere unilateral statement. There is nothing on record to show that the compromise was reached as a consequence of threat, intimidation, coercion, inducement or undue influence.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the complainant has settled the dispute with the accused and has approached this Court for setting aside of the FIR and the charge sheet and in the absence of any independent material which indicate continuing public injury or a distinct State interest requiring prosecution notwithstanding the settlement, this Court is of the view that continuation of the proceedings against the respondents would not advance the cause of justice.

From a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, it can be seen that in the application of compromise principles there is need to emphasize on four considerations such as effect of the offence upon the society, seriousness of the offence, voluntary character and conduct of the accused before and after the occurrence.

In the case at hand, upon considerations of the aforementioned considerations cumulatively, this Court has no reason to doubt that the compromise was made voluntarily and that in the given facts and circumstances of the case this court is of the view that continuance of criminal proceedings would not serve overriding public purpose.

This Court accordingly considers the present case to be one in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 528 BNSS is to be invoked to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

It is needless to mention that this Court is not compounding the offence(s) against the accused/respondents but that this Order is passed in exercise of a distinct and independent inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 528 BNSS.

In view of the foregoing discussions the present petition is allowed.

Resultantly FIR No. 0011/2026 dated 06.04.2026 u/s 324(5)/329(3)/351(2)/174 BNS 2023, the Charge Sheet No. 6/2026 dated 28.05.2026 and the connected criminal proceedings in G.R. No. 17/2026, PS-II Mkg C/No. 11/26 u/s 324(5)/329(3)/351(2)/174 BNS so far as it relates to the instant accused/petitioners which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mokokchung are hereby quashed.

All pending interlocutory applications which are pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.

With the above Order, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of as allowed.