Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Giokar Nilling S/o Shri Tagio Nilling – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 179 of 2023
Decided On : 18-03-2024
Section 482 - Quashment of Criminal Proceedings - Cr.P.C. 1973 - Sections 341/326/34 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashment of criminal proceedings under Sections 341/326/34 IPC based on a settlement between the parties. The case arose from an incident where the petitioners were accused of attacking the informant/victim with a stick and rod without provocation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter was settled between the parties, predominantly arising from election-related and family/clan disputes, and that the continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. The court considered the settlement and the private nature of the dispute, leading to the decision to quash the criminal proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the settlement between the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the applicability of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 to quash the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the settlement between the parties, the private nature of the dispute, and the observations and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar cases to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 to quash the criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 33/2019 under Section 341/326/34 IPC, 1960 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Deporijo was quashed.
Key Points: - The court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for non-compoundable offences with a civil nature, such as family disputes, if the parties have resolved the entire dispute (!) (!) . - Quashing is not appropriate for heinous or serious offences that impact society, such as those under Section 307 IPC or the Arms Act, unless the court examines the evidence and nature of the injury (!) . - The court considered the settled dispute, private nature of the matter, and the potential for harmony between clan members, leading to the conclusion that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process (!) (!) (!) . - The decision relies on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases regarding the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (!) (!) . - The criminal proceeding (G.R. Case No. 33/2019) was quashed as the charges were framed under Sections 341/326/34 IPC, and the settlement outweighed the need for prosecution (!) .
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. Heard Mr. L. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application jointly filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 seeking quashment of the Criminal Proceedings being G.R. Case No. 33/2019 under Sections 341/326/34 IPC, arising out of Daporijo P.S. Case No. 20/2019 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, on the basis of the settlement between the petitioners.
3. The petitioners No. 1 & 2 are the accused and the petitioner No. 3 is the informant/victim.
4. The case, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged on 12.04.2019 against the petitioner No. 1 & 2 by petitioner No. 3 alleging that on 10.04.2019, the informant had gone to Jeke village to caste vote in the election and stayed at the house of the one Shri Niapung Jeke. On 11.04.20019 a group of people attacked the house of Niapung Jeke. Thereafter, he tried to proceed to his village Boging and to find out whether his family members had come from Daporijo. The moment he stepped out of the house and proceeded to a small distance, two persons came rushing towards him and attacked him with stick and rod without any provocation and tried to kill him resultantly got injured severely. On the intervention of some other persons, he was saved from death. Thereafter, both the petitioner No. 1 & 2 surrendered before the Police Station, Daporijo on 03.06.2019 and were released on bail.
5. On the receipt of the FIR, a case being Daporijo P. S. Case No. 20/2019 was registered and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet No. 18/2019 under Sections 341/326/506/34 IPC was submitted on 13.07.2019 and numbered as in G.R. Case No. 33/2019. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo has framed the charges under Sections 326/341/34 IPC, against the petitioners No. 1 & 2.
6. Mr. L. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute being purely family/clan matter, the parties have settled their differences amicably and entered into settlement deed on 04.10.2022, which has been executed before the learned Executive Magistrate, Naharlagun. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement between the parties and differences had arisen due to family/clan disputes and now the petitioners are living peacefully, the continuance of criminal proceedings in the present case would be an abuse of process of law. There is a bleak chance of conviction. Therefore, he submits that the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 33/2019, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, may be quashed.
7. Mr. T. Ete, learned counsel Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that although there exists materials against the petitioner no. 1 & 2 as recorded and submitted in the charge-sheet, since the matter have been settled between the petitioners, they being the same clan members and to maintain cordial relationship and for the interest of the family/clan members, the continuance of the proceedings may be abuse of the process of law. Therefore, he submits that this Court may pass appropriate order taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances in the present matter.
8. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the materials available on record.
9. The case against the petitioner No. 1 & 2 was pursuant to the lodging of FIR by the petitioner No. 3 who is the informant/victim. The FIR was registered and charge-sheet was laid by the Investigating Officer under Sections 341/326/34 IPC. Accordingly, charges have been framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo under Sections 341/326/34 IPC against the petitioner No. 1 & 2. It is also seen that out of total prosecution 15 witnesses, 9 prosecution witnesses have been examined.
10. During the pendency of the trial of the case, the petitioners on 04.10.2022 have entered into a sett
The main legal point established is that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences of a civil nature, particularly tho....
High Court cannot quash non-compoundable offences based on a compromise when they have serious implications for society; public interest mandates prosecuting such violations.
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 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 court can invoke its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences of a predominantly private nature, especially when the parties have r....
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
