The High Court of Sikkim has formally quashed the criminal proceedings originating from FIR No. 09 of 2026, involving charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) , after the complainant organization informed the court that it no longer intended to pursue the litigation. The decision, delivered by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, effectively resolves the legal dispute between the petitioners, Sanjay Kandoi and Manoj Agarwalla, and the respondent, the Bharatiya Gorkha Parisangh (Sikkim State Branch) , by validating an out-of-court settlement reached between the involved parties.

The case originated from an FIR registered at the Ranipool Police Station on February 15, 2026 , which accused the petitioners of offences under Sections 196(1)(a) and 352 of the BNS. Following the registration of this FIR and the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet in April 2026 , the matter proceeded to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Gangtok. The petitioners approached the High Court invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 , seeking the quashing of the criminal case and all proceedings associated with it.

The petitioners raised several grounds in their plea, asserting that the FIR did not contain the essential ingredients required to constitute the alleged offences. Furthermore, they contended that the case was a counterblast to their own grievances, including claims that they had been assaulted and that the authorities had failed to register their own complaints during the initial stages of the dispute. The matter took a significant turn during the hearing held on October 14, 2026 , when the President of the Bharatiya Gorkha Parisangh, Shri Chunni Lall Ghimirey, appeared before the bench and explicitly stated that the organization was no longer interested in continuing with the prosecution of the case.

Recognizing the possibility of an amicable resolution, the court granted the parties an opportunity to document their consensus. This resulted in the filing of a formal joint compromise deed on October 15, 2026 , which was subsequently placed on the court's record. The deed explicitly stated that the parties had settled the matter voluntarily, free from any external pressure, coercion, or undue influence. The complainant organization confirmed that it had no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the related proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, effectively signaling an end to the adversarial posture previously adopted by the parties.

The legal framework underpinning the court's decision involves the nuanced application of the BNSS and the BNS. While Section 196(1)(a) of the BNS —which concerns promoting enmity between different groups—is typically categorized as a non-compoundable offence under standard criminal procedure, the High Court exercised its inherent powers to evaluate the broader interests of justice . Justice Pradhan noted that while the offence is cognizable and non-bailable , the specific nature of the conflict and the current willingness of both sides to move forward necessitated a pragmatic judicial approach.

In his oral judgment, Justice Pradhan underscored the importance of resolving such disputes through mutual agreement when the circumstances allow for it. By verifying the joint compromise deed and engaging directly with the parties present in the courtroom, the bench concluded that the legal system's resources were best served by allowing the settlement to take effect. As observed by the court during the session: “Keeping in view the nature of the offences and the manner in which the offences is said to have taken place and on examination of the joint compromise deed as well as interaction with the parties in person, I am of the considered view that justice would be best served if the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR could be quashed and is accordingly so ordered.”

This ruling highlights the court's commitment to facilitating peaceful resolutions to criminal disputes where both parties reach an understanding that further litigation would be redundant or counter-productive. By quashing the FIR, the charge-sheet , and the ongoing G.R. Case No. 59 of 2026, the court has effectively wiped the slate clean for the petitioners, allowing the matter to be finalized without further trial proceedings. The court’s emphasis on the voluntary nature of the compromise underscores the legal system's role in providing a mechanism for parties to address their grievances in a controlled, supervised, and lawful manner.

The disposal of the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS also resulted in the termination of all pending applications associated with the matter. The parties involved have committed to abiding by the terms of the compromise and working toward the peaceful closure of all legal threads connected to the case. With this order, the judicial oversight of this specific conflict concludes, effectively closing a case that had progressed through the investigative stage and reached the doors of the judiciary before being settled by the parties themselves. The proceedings at the Ranipool Police Station and the subsequent G.R. Case No. 59 of 2026 are now formally closed, with no further legal obligations arising from those specific charges against the petitioners.