Abhijeet Paul vs State of Nagaland - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 431

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Gau) 431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Mr. Abhijeet Paul & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Nagaland - Respondent
Crl. Revn. No. 6 of 2022
Decided On : 20-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Imti Longjem, Esther, Lhousino, Kitoka Sumi.
For the Respondent: K. Angami (P.P.).

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 320 and 482 – Indian Penal Code, Section 380 – Offence of Theft in dwelling – Charged - Petitioner no. 1, while employed under Fedility National Information Service, a company engaged for setting up Automated Teller Machines in Dimapur, misappropriated Air Conditioners which he was entrusted for installation in ATMs - Petitioner no. 2, who is a Senior Executive in said Company lodged an FIR dated at Police Station in connection with missing Air Conditioners, which was registered, being Police Station Case No. - Petitioner no. 1 was arrested - Petitioner no. 1, while in custody through his family replaced the stolen Air Conditioners with new sets. - Thereafter, he was released on bail - Petitioner no. 2 then submitted a letter dated for withdrawal of FIR before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, it could not be permitted for withdrawal of FIR – Held, It is settled position of law that inherent power of High Court under Section 482, CrPC should be used sparingly and must be exercised carefully and with great caution - And when courts came to conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of process of court if such power is not exercised court would quash proceeding - In light of aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and in facts and circumstances of this case, Court is of view that notwithstanding fact that offence under Section 380 is not compoundable, there should be no impediment in quashing FIR No. and GR Case No. under Section 380, IPC if Court is otherwise satisfied with facts and circumstance of case so warrants - Petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. K. Angami, learned Public Prosecutor.

2. The present petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been jointly filed by the petitioners namely Mr. Abhijeet Paul and Mr. Mohd. Amjad Ali for quashing of FIR No. 88/2014 dated 11.08.2014 under Section 380, IPC registered at Diphupar Police Station, Dimapur corresponding to GR Case No. 403/2014 before the learned CJM, Dimapur on the basis of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the petitioner nos. 1 and 2.

3. The facts in nutshell is that the petitioner no. 1, while employed under Fedility National Information Service, a company engaged for setting up Automated Teller Machines in Dimapur, misappropriated Air Conditioners which he was entrusted for installation in ATMs. The petitioner no. 2, who is a Senior Executive in the said Company lodged an FIR dated 02.08.2014 at Diphupar Police Station in connection with missing Air Conditioners, which was registered, being Diphupar Police Station Case No. 88/2014 under Section 380, IPC. The petitioner no. 1 was arrested on 08.08.2014. On 12.08.2012, the petitioner no. 1, while in custody through his family replaced the stolen Air Conditioners with new sets. Thereafter, he was released on bail. The petitioner no. 2 then submitted a letter dated 13.08.2014 for withdrawal of the FIR before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, however, it could not be permitted for withdrawal of the FIR. Pursuant to the said FIR, G.R. Case No. 403/2014 was registered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur and the Charge Sheet was also filed on 19.10.2015 and the petitioner no. 1 and one Mr. Rahul Boidya have been put up for trial for the offence under Section 380 of IPC, 1860.

4. In the meantime, on 10.07.2022, a deed of compromise was entered into between the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. By the said deed of compromise, the petitioner no. 2 declared that he has decided to forgive the petitioner no. 1 and has also agreed to do all such things or acts for amicable settlement of the case. It is also mentioned that the petitioner no. 2 has recovered the items/Air Conditioners and on his own free will decided not to initiate any legal proceedings or to pursue the legal proceedings against the petitioner no. 1.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the year 2012, the petitioner no. 1 joined the said company in the State of Nagaland and in early part of 2014 the petitioner no. 1 was promoted to Team Leader and was assigned the task interalia of installing Air Conditioners in ATMs. Both the parents of the petitioner no. 1 are heart patients and his father passed away in 2018. During the year 2013-2014, the petitioner no. 1 was having great financial hardships due to the problems faced by his family. In the circumstances, the petitioner no. 1 committed a mistake in not installing the said Air Conditioners entrusted to him by the company.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since petitioner no. 1, through his family has bought identical sets of Air Conditioners on 12.08.2014 and installed the same in ATMs, and thereafter a compromise deed has been entered into between the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, by resolving the issue amicably. This petition is being filed for quashing of the GR Case No. 403/2014 corresponding to Diphupar PS Case No. 88/2014 pending before the CJM, Dimapur on the basis of the settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the FIR dated 02.08.2014 registered on 11.08.2014 and the GR Case No. 403/2014 pending before the learned CJM, Dimapur may be set aside and quashed.

7. Per contra, Mr. K. Angami, learned PP submits that since offence is against the public which is under Section 380 of IPC, 1860 this is not a fit case where this Hon’ble Court may invoke the inherent power under Section 482, CrPC, 1973, merely on the basis of compromise deed.

8. I have considered the rival submis