Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Shri Teshi Peter, S/o Lt. Teshi Talom and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Crl.Petn. No.216 Of 2023
Decided On : 30-11-2023
QUASHING - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - IPC Section 498(A), Cr.P.C. Section 320, Cr.P.C. Section 482 - The court discussed the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences, particularly in matrimonial disputes. It highlighted that the Supreme Court's interpretation allows for quashing when the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process or when justice demands it. The court emphasized the importance of amicable settlements in matrimonial matters and the need to prevent unnecessary litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a husband and wife, sought to quash an FIR filed by the wife against the husband under Section 498(A) IPC, alleging mental harassment. They had settled their disputes amicably and executed a Settlement Deed, but the trial court could not discharge the husband as the offence was non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had voluntarily settled their disputes and were living together peacefully. It acknowledged the Supreme Court's stance that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be invoked to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences if it serves the ends of justice.
Issues: Whether the High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in light of a compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that while non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the High Court retains the inherent power to quash such proceedings if it is satisfied that continuation would be an abuse of process or contrary to the interests of justice, particularly in cases of matrimonial disputes.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband, allowing the petition and nullifying the FIR and charge-sheet based on the amicable settlement between the parties.
JUDGMENT :
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) :
Heard Mr. N. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners, who are husband and wife, have jointly instituted the present proceedings praying for quashing of the FIR, dated 29.07.2021 lodged by the petitioner no. 2 against the petitioner no. 1, leading to registration of Women Police Station, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 102/2021, under Section 498(A) of the IPC along with the Charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 41/2023, dated 20.05.2023 submitted by the Police in G. R. Case No. 697/2021.
3. The admitted facts as revealed from the materials available on record is that the petitioner no. 2 (wife) lodged an FIR on 29.07.2021 against the petitioner no. 1 (husband) alleging therein of she being subjected to torture and other mental harassment. On receipt of the said FIR, the Police registered the case being Women Police Station, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 102/2021, under Section 498(A) of the IPC and investigated into the same. On conclusion of the investigation a Charge-sheet being No. 41/2023, dated 20.05.2023 came to be filed against the petitioner no. 1. On 27.09.2023, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex at Yupia, framed charge under Section 498(A) IPC against the petitioner no. 1 and the said proceeding is currently pending disposal. During the pendency of the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 1 held discussions and on resolving their disputes, executed a Settlement Deed on 07.08.2021 and further resolving to continue to co-habit as husband and wife in a peaceful manner. In terms of the said settlement deed, the petitioner no. 1 approached the learned Trial Court praying for his discharge from the criminal proceedings in view of the settlement arrived at between him and the petitioner no. 2, however, the Section involved not being a compoundable one, under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the Trial Court expressed its inability to accept the prayer of the petitioner no. 1 and accordingly, the present proceedings have been jointly instituted by the petitioner no. 1 & 2 praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner no. 1.
4. Mr. N. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners on account of certain misunderstandings developing matrimonial disputes arose between them, but, however, the disputes were peacefully settled between the petitioners as per local custom and tradition and they were both living together as husband and wife under one roof along with their children. The settlement of dispute between the petitioners was reduced in writing in the form of a settlement agreement, dated 07.08.2021, signed voluntarily by both the petitioners in the presence of persons of the locality. Accordingly, he prays that in view of the settlement so arrived at, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner no. 1 is required to be quashed by this Court in exercising its power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
5. Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, while not objecting to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners had raised an apprehension as to whether on account of the different signatures available on record of the petitioner no. 2, it was actually the petitioner no. 2 who had signed on the settlement agreement, dated 07.08.2021 and had required the Court to examine the matter before proceeding to dispose of the case.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the parties and also considered the materials available on record.
7. At the outset, it is to be stated that during the hearing of the matter held on 23.11.2023 on an apprehension raised by the learned Addl. P.P., the counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. Rama had undertaken to produce both the petitioners before the Court. Accordingly, both the petitioners appeared before the Court and the petitioner no. 2 during t
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....
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 court can quash non-compoundable offences if the parties have amicably settled their disputes, ensuring justice is served.
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes if the parties have mutually settled their issues, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of the court process.
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
