Back
2023 Supreme(Gau) 629
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MALASRI NANDI, J.
Prof. Diganta Kumar Das S/o Late Ajit Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr – Respondent
Crl.Pet.1324 of 2022
Decided on : 08-06-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr P D Nair,
For the Respondent: Mr D Das, Mr R Baishya.
Point of Law: Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not same thing as compounding of offence.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 294, 506 - Quashing of proceeding - Obscene acts and songs - Criminal intimidation - Whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice, to permit a prosecution to continue - Law is well settled that if dispute is private in nature and does not affect the public at large then even criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise can be quashed by this Court while exercising the power under Section Cr.P.C.(Para 19)
Finding of the Court: Offence under Section 294 IPC is non-compoundable in nature and dispute between parties appear to be private in nature, which arises out of misunderstanding between parties and both parties have subsequently settled their dispute. As it appears from record that both the parties have settled matter in dispute and the dispute arose between the parties, where wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute amicably. Moreover, offences involved are not serious in nature. Even if the proceeding is allowed to continue, ultimately, case will be ended in acquittal. So, criminal case should not be allowed to proceed to create hurdle in their peaceful living.
Result: Criminal Petition disposed of
ORDER :
Heard Mr P D Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Also heard Mr R Baishya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
Although the matter was fixed for admission hearing today, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 482 CrPC, for quashing of the proceeding in connection with PRC Case No. 2175 of 2021 (arising out of All Women PS Case No. 50/2021), pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwhaati.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an academician, presently serving as the Registrar of Cotton University. The opposite party No. 2 was an aspirant for promotion to the post of Professor in Anthropology in Cotton University under the Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter, referred to as ‘CAS’, in short). However, she was not found eligible for the said promotion. Accordingly, she was not selected for the said promotion by the Executive Council of Cotton University.
4. On 24.02.2021, the opposite party No. 2 had met the petitioner in his office in the capacity as Registrar of Cotton University to enquire about the reasons for her not being selected for the CAS promotion to the post of Professor even on the verge of retirement. The petitioner stated that he did not have any role to play in the matter of her selection for the said promotion. She, then went to curse his children, due to which the petitioner requested her to keep quiet and to leave his office chamber.
5. The opposite party No. 2 got upset and approached the All Women Police Station, Panbazar, Guwahati, by filing an FIR, alleging that the petitioner used abusive words towards her such as “shut up” and “get out” and also alleged that she was about to assault her physically. On the basis of the said FIR, a case was registered as aforesaid under Sections 294/506 IPC. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, charge sheet has also been submitted and assigned to the file of learned CJM, Kamrup (Metro), vide PRC Case No. 2175/2021.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties immediately after the incident. To that effect, the respondent No.2 also has sworn an affidavit by stating that she is not interested to proceed with the case. Though the offence under Section 294 IPC is not compoundable in nature, however, as the alleged offences are petty offence and the parties have settled the matter amicably and the dispute also appears to be private in nature, this Court has power to quash the proceeding though the offence alleged against the petitioner is not compoundable. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following case laws:-
1. AIR 1929 Lah 234; (Jas Raj Jagga vs. Emperor)
2. ILR (1932) 56 Bom 196; (Emperor vs. Philip Rangel)
3. AIR 1954 Cal 288; (Fiona Shirkhande vs. State of Maharashtra)
4. AIR 1966 SC 1773 (Veeda Menezes vs. Yusuf Khan vs. Ors.)
5. (1990) 2 GLR 217; (Shri Heramba Sarma vs. Shri Ajoy Sankar Das)
6. (2003) 4 SCC 675; (B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.)
7. (2008) 9 SCC 677; (Nikhil Merchant –Vs- Central Bureau of Investigation & Another)
8. (2011) 10 SCC 705; (Shiji –Vs- Radhika)
9. (2012) 10 SCC 303; (Gian Singh –vs- State of Punjab)
10. (2012) 12 SCC 401; (Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana –Vs-State of Gujarat & Anr.)
11. (2013) 14 SCC 44; (Fiona Shirkhande –vs- State of Maharashtra & Anr.)
12. (2014) 6 SCC 466; (Narinder Singh –Vs- State of Punjab & Anr.)
13. (2015) 7 SCC 423; (Manik Taneja & Another vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.)
14. (2018) 3 SCC 290; (Anita Maria Dias –Vs- State of Maharashtra & Anr.)
15. (2019) 5 SCC 688; (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Others)
16. (2019) 14 SCC 207; (Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another)
17. 2021 SCC Online SC 966; (Ramawatar –Vs- State of Madhya Pra
