Point of law : FIR, the Charge Sheet and statement of the witnesses and other documents placed on record it cannot be said with certainty that the ingredients of the offence under section 392 IPC is fulfilled. At best ingredients of the offence of extortion, punishable under section 384 IPC, seem to be made out.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition, under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is preferred jointly by the petitioners, namely, (1) Shri Gollo Kaya, (2) Shri Gollo Kacho, who are the accused herein this case and (3) Shri Techi Jordu, who is the complainant of this case for quashing Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 69/2018 under Sections 394/34 of the IPC.

2. The factual background leading to filing of this criminal petition is adumbrated hereinbelow:-

“On 17.04.2018, at about 12.30 PM, 3 unknown boys came in one Eon Car (white colour) bearing registration No. AR-01H-1041, entered into the shop of Shri Techi Jordu situated at Nyorch Village, near Yupia District HQ and physically assaulted him and demanded a sum of 10,000/- and after a heated argument, they have taken away a sum of Rs.4,000/- from his shop.

On receipt of the Ejahar from Shri Techi Jordu, on 18.04.2018, the Officer-in-Charge of Naharlagun Police Station registered Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 69/2018 under Section 394/34 IPC and endorsed to S.I.-Shri T. Mai for investigation. The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence and examined the witnesses and arrested the accused and forwarded them to the learned Court below and on completion of the investigation, the I.O. of the case laid the Charge-Sheet before the learned Court below against the petitioners No.(1) Shri Gollo Kaya and (2) Shri Gollo Kacho to stand trial under Section 394/34 of the IPC.

In the meanwhile, the accused and the complainant, at the instance of their family members entered into a settlement deed and resolve their dispute and decided to withdraw the case on the basis of the said settlement deed. Thereafter, he approached this Court for quashing the FIR and the Charge-Sheet as the offence under Section 394 of the IPC is not compoundable.”

3. We have heard Mr. T. Poto, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. U. Bori, the ld. Addl. P.P. for the state of Arunachal Pradesh.

4. Mr. T. Poto, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no incident, as described in the FIR, has ever taken place and in fact the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 came to the shop of the petitioner No. 3 for collecting donation for holding meeting in the village and then some arguments took place between them and a sum of Rs.4,000/-is donated by the petitioner No.3 to the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Poto, further submitted that at the instance of their family members, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and petitioner No. 3 entered into a settlement deed and they have compromised the matter amicably outside the Court and decided not to pursue the matter and since the offence under Section 394 of the IPC is not compoundable offence, they approached this Court by filing this criminal petition.

5. Mr. Poto, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred following case laws, in his support:-

(i) Madan Mohan Abbot-vs.-State of Punjab; (2008) 4 SCC 582;

(ii) Nikhil Merchant-vs-CBI & Anr; (2008) 9 SCC 677;

(iii) Shiji alias Pappu & Ors-vs-Radhika and Anr; (2011) 10 SCC 705.

6. Mr. Poto, further submitted that the offence herein this case is personal in nature and not against the society and on the basis of ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, the proceeding of Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 69/2018 under Section 394/34 of the IPC can be quashed. Therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

7. On the other hand, Mr. U. Bori, the learned Addl. PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh has submitted that the occurrence took place on the highway and the punishment prescribed in the offence is more than 10 years and in view of the settled position of law, a proceeding of this nature can be quashed. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

8. Having heard the submission of learned advocates of both sides, we have carefully gone through the record. It appears that during investigation, the I.O. has examined only 2 (two) prosecution witnesses and out of the 2 (two) witnesses, petitioner No. 3 is the complainant and one is the shop keeper.

9. It also appear