Back
2017 Supreme(Sikk) 81
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.
Shri Rajendra Rai, Son of Mon Bdr. Rai - Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim - Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 06 of 2017
Decided on : 19-05-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.P. Bhutia, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. J.B. Pradhan, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Santosh Kr. Chettri and Ms. Pollin Rai, Adv
The court can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings based on the interest of justice, settlement between the parties, and the nature of the offenses involved.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [FIR No. 30/2014] - [Section 307 IPC, Section 320 CrPC] - The court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to quash the criminal trial based on the well-settled principles of law, the interest of justice, and the close relationship of the complainant, accused, and victims.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, husband of Smt. Kamala Chettri, assaulted his wife and close relatives, leading to the filing of an FIR and charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries sustained were simple in nature, and considering the close relations involved, it exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to quash the criminal trial.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to quash the criminal trial based on the close relationship of the parties and the interest of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on well-settled principles of law, including the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settlement between the parties, and the interest of justice to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favor of quashing the criminal trial.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings pending in the trial court.
ORDER :
Satish K. Agnihotri, J
The instant petition is filed under provisions of Section 482 read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the FIR No. 30/2014 and further pending trial in S.T. Case No. 22/2015 (State of Sikkim vs. Rajendra Rai) on the file of Court of Sessions Judge (East) at Gangtok, East Sikkim.
2. Petitioner No. 1, the accused, is the husband of one Smt. Kamala Chettri. Petitioner No. 2 is the sister-in-law, petitioner No. 3 is the brother-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is the father-in-law of petitioner No. 1/accused. As projected by the petitioners herein, the first petitioner was married to Smt. Kamala Chettri, daughter of the fourth petitioner. The first petitioner and Smt. Kamala Chettri, living happily were blessed with three children. On the fateful day, i.e. on April 19, 2014, the first petitioner, in drunken condition, had gone to attend a marriage party in Village Nandok. The first petitioner created some nuisance, which was objected to by the wife (Mrs. Kamala Chettri). The first petitioner became furious and assaulted her. Petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 4, who happened to be present there, removed the wife and took her away to the nearby house of petitioner No. 3. The first petitioner followed his wife there and again assaulted Kamala Chettri. On intervention by other members, the first petitioner assaulted petitioners No. 3 and 4 with iron spear and caused severe injuries in the abdomen. This incident lead to filing of FIR on April 20, 2014 by petitioner No. 2, who happened to be the sister-in-law of the first petitioner/accused. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed to stand trial for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in the Court of Sessions Judge (East) at Gangtok in S.T. Case No. 22 of 2015.
3. All the petitioners, who are undisputedly close relatives, have reached to an agreement and executed terms of compromise on September 24, 2016, whereunder the following agreement was recorded: -
“1. That the First Party No. 01 shall withdraw the F.I.R. bearing No. 30/2014 dated 20/04/2014 lodged at Ranipool Police Station, East Sikkim.
2. That both the Parties shall maintain peace and harmony amongst each other.
3. That this present Compromise Deed is executed by the above named parties as per their terms and conditions and all the Parties will adhere to the terms and conditions of this present Compromise Deed and will not dispute the contents of this Compromise Deed in any manner whatsoever in future.
4. That after understanding the contents of the present Agreement/Deed and its implications thereof and with their due desire without any threat, coercion or any undue influence, both the Parties have signed this Agreement/Deed in their free state of mind and in full presence of mind and in future none of the Parties will dispute the contents of this present Agreement/Deed.
5. That this Compromise Deed is made bonafide and in the interest of justice.”
Consequently, this petition came to be filed by all the petitioners jointly to quash the FIR against the first petitioner pending trial.
4. Mr. S.P. Bhutia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, referring to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav and others vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2014) 9 SCC 653, submits that the accused is the son-in-law of the family and the assault was taken on a spur of moment. All the parties have agreed to live peacefully. Thus, this Court exercising its discretion may quash the proceedings.
5. On the contrary, Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the injuries are serious in nature, however, on investigation, it is reported that the injuries sustained were of simple nature. It is further submitted that stabbing made on stomach could have led to serious consequences and as such the first petitioner/accused was charge-sheeted under Section 307 I
