Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 1392
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT ITANAGAR BENCH
AJIT BORTHAKUR, J.
SHRI TADAR BUDH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
Crl. Petn. 36 (AP) 2016
Decided on : 08-03-2018
For the Appellant :T. Uli, Mr. K. Posi, Mr. T. Nagu, Mr. N. Yahi, Ms. O. Binggep and Mr. L. Perme, Advocates
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 and 161 - Indian Penal Code , 1860 - Sections 307/326 - First Information Report – Quashing - Customary law - Petitioner had assaulted petitioner with local knife at Lower and petitioner having come to know of incident lodged an FIR with Police Station against petitioner and Accordingly case was registered under Indian Penal Code and police after completion of investigation submitted Charge Sheet under aforesaid IPC against petitioner Sessions Case under Indian Penal Code has been registered in Court of District Sessions Judge District Arunachal Pradesh and same is presently pending at stage for consideration of charges - Held , Counsels for both parties and having noticed that parties have already entered into compromise among themselves outside Court there is likelihood that if trial of proceedings of incident that occurred in is allowed to continue in that event it will be against ends of justice and abuse of process of Court and On other hand considering restoration of good relation between petitioners - Who are now living as one family and Court considered opinion that this Court should not stand as hindrance to good and blooming relationships that has developed among petitioners after instant old incident and chances of conviction have become bleak ratio of judgment of Supreme Court may be aptly quoted when chances of conviction are bleak in that event proceeding can be quashed by invoking inherent jurisdiction of Court under Criminal Procedure Code and aforesaid and having noted principles laid by Apex Court in aforesaid judgments - Criminal petition allowed
AJIT BORTHAKUR, J.
1. Heard Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. M. Tang, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh for the state respondent.
2. By this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners, viz. Shri Tadar Budh, Petitioner No. 1 (accused); Shri Pani Kaha, Petitioner No. 2 (victim) and Smt. Pani Kioch, Petitioner No. 3 (informant/mother of the victim), have prayed for setting aside and quashing of the criminal proceeding arising out of First Information Report (FIR), dated 23.02.2008, registered as Nyapin P.S Case No. 01/2008, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 10/2016 (NYN P.S. Case No. 01/08), under Sections 307/326 IPC, pending in the Court of learned District. Sessions Judge, Yupia.
3. Brief facts of the case is that, on 21.02.2008, at about p.m, the petitioner No. 1 had assaulted the petitioner No. 2 with local knife at Lower Nyapin and thereafter, the petitioner No. 3, having come to know of the incident, lodged an FIR with the Nyapin Police Station against the petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, case was registered being Nyapin P.S. Case No. 01/2008, under Sections 307/326 IPC. The police, after completion of investigation, submitted Charge Sheet under the aforesaid Sections of the IPC against the petitioner No. 1. Thereafter, the Sessions Case No. 10/2016 (NYN 01/08), under Sections 307/326 IPC has been registered in the Court of learned District. Sessions Judge, Yupia, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh and the same is presently pending at the stage for consideration of charges.
4. Mr. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are closely related to each other. The petitioner No. 2 (victim) is the son of the petitioner No. 3 (informant). Mr. Perme further submits that the aforesaid unfortunate incident took place in the year 2008 and by the end of the year 2008, they had amicably settled the matter outside the Court and all of them are living harmoniously as one family. In the said settlement, the petitioners have agreed not to pursue the matter any further and withdraw the case accordingly. It is the submission of Mr. Perme that the petitioner No. 1 has compensated the petitioner No. 2 as per the customary law by way of paying local ornaments worth Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) approximately and. (three) Mithuns (bros-frontails) worth Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) approximately, to the petitioner No. 2 (victim).
5. Ms. Tang, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh submits that having regard to the nature of the incident, wherein the petitioner No. 2, allegedly sustained grievous injuries, the instant petition may not be fit one for quashing of the FIR of the case. On query made by this Court, the Addl. P.P., fairly submits that although the Charge Sheet has been submitted under sections 307/326 IPC, however, the injury report is not available in the case record. Ms. Tang has further drawn attention of this Court to the statement of the petitioner No. 1 (accused) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein, he had admitted to have stabbed the petitioner No. 2 twice, with knife.
6. On scrutiny of the records of Sessions Case No. 10/2016, it appears that the injury report has neither been mentioned as enclosed with the Charge Sheet that has been submitted by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) nor the injury report is otherwise available on the case record. Hence, it is difficult to infer that the petitioner No. 2 (victim) has sustained grievous injuries. On the other hand, the statement of confession made by the accused, while in custody of police is not admissible in evidence.
7. In the case of Narendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 06 SCC 466, the Supreme Court, in paragraphs 12 and 29, has observed as under:
"the power of the High Court in quashing criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the po
