Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Dinesh Tacho Son of Shri Rune Tacho and Anr – Appellants
Versus
The State Of AP – Respondent
Crl.Petn. 119 of 2021
Decided on : 14-03-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 337 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(IB)/27 (I) – Inherent jurisdiction to quash a proceeding – Charge-Sheet – have jointly preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for invoking inherent power of this Court to quash the FIR of Anini P.S. Case, under Section 337 IPC, read with Section 25(IB)/27 (I) of Arms Act and Charge-Sheet, corresponding to aforementioned case, which is presently pending before Court of learned JMFC – Held, It is to be mentioned here that petitioner No. 2, here, in this case is Charge-sheeted under Section 337 IPC read with Section 25 (IB)/27(I) of Arms Act – Since Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of (Supra) in no uncertain terms stated that offence under Arms Act falls in category of heinous and serious offences, and since petitioner No.2 is charge-sheeted under section 25 (IB)/27(I) of Arms Act, which are to be treated as crime against society and not against individual alone, instant criminal proceeding for offence under Arms Act, cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Code, on ground, that parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves – Court have considered submissions of learned Advocates of both sides and also considered facts and circumstances on record and Court find submission, so advance by learned counsel for petitioners, devoid of merit – Ratio, laid down in case of (Supra), so referred by him and discussed herein above, to considered opinion of this Court would not come into his aid – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shri Dinesh Tacho/petitioner No. 1 and Shri Mamugey/ petitioner No.
2. have jointly preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for invoking the inherent power of this Court to quash the FIR of Anini P.S. Case No. 14/10, under Section 337 IPC, read with Section 25(IB)/27 (I) of the Arms Act and the Charge-Sheet No.01/2011, corresponding to aforementioned case, which is presently pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Anini. Be it mentioned here that the above mentioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by petitioner No.2, who has shot at petitioner No.1 with his gun and injured him due to some domestic dispute.
2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly, stated as under:-
3. I have heard Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
4. Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are brother in relation and their dispute is civil in nature and at the relevant time altercation took place between the two brothers accidentally a bullet went off from the gun, which was on the back of the petitioner No. 2, and injured the petitioner No.2 and he had no intention to cause the same. Mr. Garam, further submits that at the behest of the family members and local villagers, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have settled their dispute and they have also entered into a settlement agreement and based upon the said settlement agreement, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the further proceeding pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Anini Mr. Garam also submits that since the dispute is between 2 (two) brothers and since it is private in nature and not against the society, the petition can be allowed to meet the ends of justice. Mr. Garam also referred one case law of the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh-vs-Laxmi Narayan ; reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 to make good of his submission.
5. On the other hand, Mr. J. Tsering, learned PP submits that the petitioner No.2 is charge sheeted under Section 25 (IB)/27 (I) of the Arms Act, besides Section 337 of the IPC. Mr. Tsering, further submits that apart from other conditions, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the offence also before invoking its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also the scanned copy of the record received from the learned Court below. It appears that Anini P.S. Case No. 14/2010 under Section 307 IPC read with Section 25 (IB)/27 (I) Arms Act has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by the petitioner No. 2 on 16.12.2010, wherein, in no uncertain term, the
Arms Act would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore these offences are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone.
Serious offences under the Arms Act cannot be quashed based on compromise due to their societal impact, as established by judicial precedents.
The court's decision emphasized the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence and the societal impact of quashing criminal proceedings based on a compromise.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on a genuine compromise and the nature of the offenses, as supp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to invoke inherent powers under section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on a voluntary settlement between the pa....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
