SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Gau) 677

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Robin Phukan, J.
Apriya Chikro and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh - Respondent
Crl. Petn. No. 30 of 2021
Decided On : 02-09-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the petitioners: Mr. C.W. Mantaw.
For the respondent: Mr. T. Ete

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 366-A, 498-A, 506, 376, – Criminal procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, 320, 173 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 –Section 4/6 – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Offence of rape – Quashing for First Information Report – Procuration of minor girl – Application, under section 482 of the CrPC, is preferred (informant, w, PO/PS-, District-, Arunachal Pradesh, petitioner No. 1 and by petitioner, Arunachal Pradesh, jointly, for setting aside and quashing the FIR of Tezu Women P.S. Case, registered under sections 498-A/506 of the Penal Code, 1860, on the basis of a Deed of Settlement, executed by both the parties, before Executive Magistrate at Tezu – Held, Court have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as of the learned Addl. P.P., in the light of facts and circumstances on the record and case diary, and we left unimpressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, we find that there is substance in the submission of the learned Addl. P.P., and we record our concurrence to the same – Case in hand also does not fall in any of the categories of cases, given by way of illustration, in the case, by the hon'ble Supreme Court, where the inherent power, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice – Categories of cases illustrated therein are applying the ratio, laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and (supra) and (supra) to factual matrix of the case in hand, we are constrained to hold that this is not a fit case where the inherent power under section 482, CrPC can be invoked to quash the FIR of Tezu P.S. Case – Petition rejected.

ORDER :

1. This application, under section 482 of the CrPC, is preferred by Mrs. Apriya Chikro (informant, w/o Shri Anemso Pul, Village-Chereng, PO/PS-Wakro, District-Lohit, Arunachal Pradesh, petitioner No. 1 and by petitioner No. 2-Shri Anemso Pul, s/o late Sigu Pul, Village-Chereng, District-Lohit, Arunachal Pradesh, jointly, for setting aside and quashing the FIR of Tezu Women P.S. Case No. 06/2021, registered under sections 498-A/506 of the Penal Code, 1860 dated 2.6.2021, on the basis of a Deed of Settlement, dated 8.9.2021, executed by both the parties, before the Executive Magistrate at Tezu on 9.7.2021.

2. Heard Mr. C.W. Mantaw, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

3. The factual background, under which Tezu Women P.S. Case No. 06/2021, under section 498-A/506 of the Indina Penal Code, came to be registered, is adumbrated hereinbelow

    “The petitioner No. 1-Mrs. Apriya Chikro and petitioner No. 2-Shri Anemso Pul are husband and wife. They got married in the year 2014, and they are blessed with a son, namely, Master Anshun Pul. After 3 months of birth of the baby to the petitioner No. 1, the petitioner No. 2, developed extra marital affairs with one young girl, namely, Ms. Baby Chakkap (actual name withheld) and, though, the petitioner No. 1 protested against such activities, the petitioner No. 2 paid no heed to the same and he continued with illicit affairs with the young girl. The petitioner No. 2 also started abusing petitioner No. 1, both physically and mentally and though the petitioner No. 1 tried her level best to get the matters resolved yet, the same failed to yield in a result. Thereafter, on 1.7.2021, the petitioner No. 2 eloped with Ms. Baby Chakkap. Then having came to know about the same the petitioner No. 1 started searching petitioner No. 2 and the girl and traced them out in the house of elder brother of the petitioner No. 2 at Forest Quarter, near GHSS Girls Hostel, with his newly wedded wife, and when she protested about the second marriage, then the petitioner No. 2 pressed her neck and assaulted her in front of everyone. The petitioner No. 1 also requested the petitioner No. 2 not to indulge in such activities, but he paid a deaf ear to her request. Instead he happily brought Ms. Baby Chakkap, a minor girl of 16 years old, studying in Class-X at VKV Amliang.”

The petitioner No. 1, then lodged one FIR (Annexure-I) with the Officer in-Charge of Women Police Station, Tezu on 2.6.2021. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer in-Charge of Women Police Station, Tezu registered the case, being Tezu Women P.S. Case No. 06/2021, under section 498-A/506 of the Penal Code, 1860 and endorsed Inspector, Smti. Bharati Mingki, to investigate the same.

Pending completion of investigation, the petitioner-No. 1 entered into a settlement deed (Annexure-II) with the petitioner No. 2. And thereafter, she approach the Officer in-Charge Women. Police Station, Tezu with one petition (Annexure-III) for withdrawal of Tezu Women P.S. Case No. 06/2021, registered under section 498-A/506 of the Penal Code, 1860. She has also filed another petition (Annexure-III colley) before the learned JMFC, Tezu informing him about the settlement of the case between her and her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 approached this court for quashing the FIR (Annexure-I), by filing the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

4. Mr. C.W. Mantaw, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the law relating to quashing of FIR, exercising the inherent power under section 482 of the CrPC is settled by Kon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 are husband and wife and they have settled the disputes between themselves and they are no longer interested to pursue with the case and they have also entered into a settlement deed dated 9.7.2021, and on the basis

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top