Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.
Shri Manoj Darjee, Son of Shri Krishna Narayan Darjee - Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim - Respondent
Crl. Misc. Case No. 16 of 2017
Decided on : 22-02-2018
Compromise - Quashing of F.I.R. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - [Section 324 IPC, Section 482 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and its application in quashing the F.I.R. and Charge Sheet based on a compromise between the parties. The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments to establish the principles guiding the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases involving compromise between the parties and the interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The accused assaulted the victim, resulting in severe injuries. Subsequently, a compromise was reached between the parties, and they sought to quash the F.I.R. and Charge Sheet.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assault was a result of a quarrel between the parties and that they had reached a compromise to live peacefully together.
Issues: The court examined whether the F.I.R. and Charge Sheet should be quashed based on the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various Supreme Court judgments to establish the principles guiding the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases involving compromise between the parties and the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The F.I.R. and consequential proceedings were quashed based on the compromise reached between the parties.
ORDER :
Satish K. Agnihotri, J
The instant petition is filed by the accused, the complainant and the victim, who are arrayed as Petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 respectively, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short, the Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the F.I.R. No. 34/2016 dated 01.02.2016 and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom in G.R. Case No. 130 of 2017 (State of Sikkim -vs- Manoj Darjee) pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Gangtok.
2. The genesis of filing of the instant petition is that the Third Petitioner was allegedly assaulted in Gangtok by the First Petitioner, consequent thereupon sustained severe injuries on his head. The Second Petitioner, being the brother of the Third Petitioner, filed the F.I.R. on 01.02.2016, stating that the Third Petitioner, his brother was assaulted by the First Petitioner, who stays in Tibet Road, sustaining severe injuries on his head. He was admitted to S.T.N.M. Hospital under critical condition. On investigation, the case was registered as Sessions Trial (S.T.) Case No. 12 of 2017 in the Judicial Service Centre, Gangtok on 02.06.2017.
3. On 16.08.2017, learned Sessions Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok, on examination of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the case was triable for an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the IPC). Accordingly, the case file was transferred to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (East) at Gangtok and a charge under Section 324 of the IPC was framed. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Gangtok.
4. In the meantime, the accused, i.e. First Petitioner, entered into compromise with the complainant, the Second Petitioner and the victim, the Third Petitioner on 31.10.2017, which was recorded in writing and filed herein. The terms of the Compromise read as under:-
“1. That the Second Party shall withdraw the F.I.R. dated 01.02.2016 lodged by him before the Sadar P.S.
2. That after the execution of this deed of compromise all the parties shall maintain cordial relations with each other.
3. That all the parties hereto have voluntary arrived at this compromise without any duress, force, pressure or undue influence from any quarter whatsoever.”
Pursuant thereto, the instant petition is filed by all the parties, as afore-stated, seeking quashing of F.I.R. and Charge Sheet thereafter against the First Petitioner.
5. Ms. Sedenla Bhutia, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, would contend that in the heat of argument as the accused and victim both were inebriated, the First Petitioner assaulted the Third Petitioner without any intention or ill will. They were moving around together, dining and wining together, thus, the injury caused by the First Petitioner to the Third Petitioner was a result of quarrel between them. It is further contended that since the parties have settled their dispute amicably and decided to live peacefully together, the petition may be allowed and the F.I.R. as well as the Charge Sheet be quashed.
6. Referring to the observations made by the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others, (2008) 16 SCC 1 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and also Order dated 19.05.2017 rendered by this Court in Rajendra Rai and Others vs. State of Sikkim, it is submitted by Ms. Sedenla Bhutia, learned Counsel that this is a fit case to quash the F.I.R. and Charge Sheet in exercise of extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Responding, Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would urge that the case was initially registered as sessions case looking into the injuries sustained by the Third Petitioner. However, on examination, it was noticed that it was a case of an offence under Section 324 of the IPC only. Accordingly, charge was frame
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
