Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Sujit Rai S/o Shri Muktar Rai – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 122 of 2022
Decided On : 14-11-2023
Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Settlement Deed - IPC, 1860, IT Act - Section 354A/506 IPC, 1860, Section 66-E of the IT Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner no. 1 was accused of capturing obscene videos and pictures of the petitioner no. 2 without consent, threatening and blackmailing her, and attempting to abduct her forcefully. A settlement deed was executed between the parties, and the petitioner no. 2 expressed no objection to quashing the criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement deed was entered into voluntarily and without coercion, leading to a harmonious relationship between the parties. It concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be futile since the matter had been settled, and the possibility of convictions seemed bleak and remote.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed based on the settlement deed and the absence of objection from the petitioner no. 2.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that the power to quash criminal proceedings can be exercised when there is a settlement in private nature cases, and the continuance of the proceedings would be futile. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 to support its decision.
Final Decision: The criminal proceedings under sections 354A/506 IPC, 1860 read with Section 66-E of the IT Act were set aside and quashed.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
2. This is an application filed jointly by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of criminal proceedings in GR Case No. 36/2021 (arises out of Aalo P.S. Case No. 15/2021) under sections 354A/506 IPC, 1860, read with section 66-E of the IT Act against the petitioner no. 1 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, Aalo on the basis of a settlement dated 14.09.2022.
3. The petitioner no. 1 is the accused and the petitioner no. 2, is the complainant/victim.
4. The brief fact of the case is that on 09.04.2021, the petitioner no. 2 has filed a complaint/FIR against the petitioner no. 1, alleging that the petitioner no. 1 had captured some obscene videos and pictures of the petitioner no. 2 without her consent and based on that the petitioner no. 1 has been threatening and blackmailing her for having physical relationship with him. It was also alleged that on 09.04.2021, at around 1500 hours, the petitioner no. 1 had attempted to abduct her forcefully by causing hurt and forcefully dragged her on the road from her place of accommodation located at Sipu Puyi near NEFTU. Thereafter, FIR was registered being Aalo P.S. Case No. 15/2021 under Sections 341/354/354A/323/506 of IPC, 1860, read with section 66-E of the IT Act. After completion of the investigation, a Chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner no. 1 under Sections 341/354/354A/323/506 IPC, 1860 read with Section 66-E of the IT Act.
5. The Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 354A/506 IPC, 1860 read with Section 66-E of the IT Act against the petitioner no. 1 by dropping the others sections.
6. In the meantime, the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 have compromised and settled the case mutually by executing a compromise deed dated 14.09.2022 before the Executive Magistrate, West Siang District, Aalo, on the intervention of the family members and the well-wishers.
7. Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present application has been filed for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, Aalo in GR Case No. 36/2021. He submits that the parties were having a love affair with each other, thereafter; there arose a certain misunderstanding between the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2, due to which the present case has been registered and accordingly, the charges have been framed. He further submits that the parties have entered into a settlement and have decided to maintain cordial relationship and to move on in their respective lives. Therefore, the criminal proceedings in GR Case No. 36/2021 may be quashed.
8. Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that vide the Order dated 17.01.2023, this Court has directed the petitioner no. 2, the complainant/victim to file an affidavit stating that whether she has any objection if the criminal proceeding against the petitioner no. 1 is quashed. Accordingly, the petitioner no. 2 has filed an affidavit stating that she has entered with a compromise agreement and she has no objection if the criminal proceeding against the petitioner no. 1 is quashed. In the above circumstances Ms. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that since the petitioner no. 1, the accused and the petitioner no. 2, the informant/victim have entered into a compromise deed by settling the matter between them, this Court may pass an appropriate order as deem fit, in accordance with law.
9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record.
10. The principle of law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings while exercising power under section 482 of
The power to quash criminal proceedings can be exercised when there is a settlement in private nature cases, and the continuance of the proceedings would be futile.
The High Court can quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings under Section 482 when the parties have amicably settled their dispute, provided the offences are not serious in nature.
Serious offences like rape cannot be compromised or settled, as they have a significant impact on society and public interest in punishing offenders.
The court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, when the parties have settled the dispute and the nature of the offense is not heinous or has a serious impact on soci....
The court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings when parties have reached a settlement and the possibility of conviction is remote.
The power to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the court must consider the nature and gravity of the crime,....
The settlement between the parties and mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can justify the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, especially in....
The court clarified the limits of its powers under Section 482 to quash non-compoundable offences based on amicable settlements while distinguishing serious from non-serious offences.
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
