Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, (ITANAGAR BENCH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Damli Bomjen, Son of Tadam Bomjen and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P., represented by the PP of A.P. – Respondent
Crl. Petn. No.56 of 2024
Decided On : 20-05-2024
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - 354D/500 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the power of the court to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of the compromise between parties. The court referred to the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana & Another and the subsequent decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. to establish the principles guiding the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the duty to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the need to secure the ends of justice. It highlighted that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised with utmost care and caution, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, and the possibility of conviction. The court concluded that in cases where the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, the court can quash such proceedings even if the offences are non-compoundable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were the accused and informant in a criminal case under Sections 354D/500 IPC, jointly prayed for quashing of the FIR based on a compromise between them. The petitioner no. 2 had lodged the FIR against petitioner no. 1, alleging harassment, defamation, and mental agony. However, with the intervention of their well-wishers and family members, the petitioners resolved their differences and executed a Deed of Compromise and Settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the power of the court to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of the compromise between parties. It emphasized the duty to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the need to secure the ends of justice. The court concluded that in cases where the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, the court can quash such proceedings even if the offences are non-compoundable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court has the power, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised with utmost care and caution, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, and the possibility of conviction. It emphasized the duty to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the need to secure the ends of justice. The court concluded that in cases where the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, the court can quash such proceedings even if the offences are non-compoundable.
Final Decision: The court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., quashed the F.I.R. dated 03.02.2023, registered as Yingkion P.S. Case.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S. D. Loda, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
2. The petitioners who are the accused and informant respectively in connection with Yingkion P.S. Case No. 06/2023 under Sections 354D/500 IPC, have jointly instituted the present proceedings praying for quashing of the connected F.I.R. dated 03.02.2023, on the basis of a compromise entered into between them on resolution of the misapprehensions that had developed between them.
3. The petitioner no. 2, herein, had lodged an F.I.R. on 03.02.2023 against the petitioner no. 1, herein, before the Police of Yingkion Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner no. 1, herein, had lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner no. 2, wherein, he had levelled unwarranted allegations against her which had the effect of defaming her reputation before the society. It was further contended by the petitioner no. 2 in the said F.I.R., that the petitioner no. 1 had been following her madly since last 8 (eight) to 9 (nine) months continuously disturbing her and causing mental harassment to her. It was further alleged that the petitioner no. 1 was continuously attempting to establish relationship with her, which she was not interested in. The petitioner no. 2 further proceeded to allege that the petitioner no. 1 was blackmailing her to have a relationship with him and marry him. Accordingly, on the basis of the said harassment, blackmailing and also spreading rumours about her, which had caused her mental agony, the F.I.R. in question was filed by the petitioner no. 2. The Police on receipt of the said F.I.R., proceeded to register Yingkion P.S. Case No. 06/2023 under Sections 354D/500 IPC and the said case is presently under investigation.
4. It is contended that after registration of the said F.I.R., the petitioner no. 1 had approached this Court by way of instituting Criminal Petition No. 38/2023 praying for quashing of the same, along with the consequential criminal proceedings. This Court had kept the investigation in the said case in abeyance. However, in the meanwhile, with the involvement of the elders and seniors of the communities to which the petitioners belong, a resolution of the disputes and misapprehensions existing between the petitioners came to be resolved and accordingly, the petitioners on resolution of their differences, proceeded to record a compromise and settlement in the matter by executing a Deed of Compromise and Settlement on 16.10.2023. Accordingly, the pending Criminal Petition No. 38/2023 was withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to file the same afresh. Accordingly, the present proceeding is jointly filed by the petitioners, who are the accused and the informant, respectively, in the connected criminal case.
5. It is contended by the petitioners that the misunderstanding as existing between them were resolved and the petitioner no. 2, on realising the effect of the criminal case as lodged by her against the petitioner no. 1 on his future prospects, and she not wanting the petitioner no. 1 to suffer unnecessarily, had forgiven the petitioner no. 1 and resolved to maintain a cordial relationship with him. It was contended that the petitioners on account of the intervention made in the matter by their well wishers and family members, had proceeded to arrive at a mutual resolution of their disputes and the result of which was the execution of the Deed of Compromise and Settlement, dated 16.10.2023 between the petitioners. The offence involved being not compoundable, the petitioners contend that they have instituted the present proceedings jointly praying for quashing of the same.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the parties and also considered the materials available on record.
7. The issue arising in the present proceedings is as to whether this Court has the power, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings inv
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of the compromise between parties, provid....
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences if the parties have settled their disputes amicably and continuat....
The High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. even for non-compoundable offences if the parties have amicably settled their disputes and continu....
Point of Law : Exercise of power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that dispute has been settled, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of offence.
Point of law: Quash of FIR – Theft of gold ornaments and cash – Compromise between parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the quashing of criminal proceedings based on compromise between the parties should be considered in light of the nature and gravity of the of....
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
