IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision emphasized the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C in considering the nature and impact of the offence, the voluntary nature of the compromise, and the conduct of the accused persons.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioners herein with a prayer to quash the First Information Report (FIR) No. 105 (11) of 2014 dated 8.11.2014 and the proceedings related thereto pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Shillong in GR Case No. 68(S) of 2015 under Section 365/379/34 IPC.

2. Heard Mr. H. R. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that the facts of the case between the petitioners has its genesis to the FIR dated 8.11.2014 lodged by the petitioner No. 1 herein before the Officer- In-Charge, Laban Police Station wherein he has narrated an incident which occurred on 8.11.2014 at about 9:30 pm. While he was on his way to his resident at Laban before reaching his house, four boys attacked him and punched him and also forcefully entered his car and drove towards Nongthymmai. When they stopped at Jingkieng Nongthymmai, two of them got off the car allowing the informant to escape where he ran to his friend's house and eventually they dropped him home. Hence the FIR. It is also mentioned therein that the assailants has taken his bag containing his laptop, his mobile phone and important official documents. The case was registered as Laban P.S. Case No. 105(11) 2014 under Section 365/379/34 IPC and investigation was launched. In course of investigation, the I/O has arrested (i) Shri. Andrian Sohtun, (ii) Shri. Bryan Sohtun, (iii) Shri. Pharstar Ryntathiang, (iv) Shri. Bob Marbaniang and (v) Smti. Angela Dafiny Sohtun.

3. The Investigating Officer (I/O) after completion of the investigation has filed the charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C implicating the abovementioned person who were arrested in the case.

4. The learned CJM then framed charges against the accused/petitioner No. 2, 3 and 4 as well as against Shri Pharstar Ryntathiang. From the records it is shown that another accused person, Bob Marbaniang is since deceased. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for evidence and the evidence of PW-1 who is the petitioner No. 1 herein as complainant was recorded on 7.9.2022.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the whole episode was a case of misunderstanding between the parties since, two of the apprehended persons are the sons of the complainant's friend and on intervention of the relatives, the petitioner No. 1 has amicably settled the matter between him and the petitioner No. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The police was approached for withdrawal of the FIR but since the same was registered under non-compoundable sections of the Indian Penal Code, the compromise between the parties could not be affected.

6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner No. 1 had genuinely accepted the apology tendered by the petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 herein and in his evidence before the Court as PW-1 has clearly deposed that the incident never happened.

7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an affidavit bringing on record the Deed of Compromise executed between the Petitioner No. 1/complainant and petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 as well as the accused Shri. Pharstar Ryntathiang has been filed before this Court wherein it is clearly stated that on intervention of the elders and well-wishers of the parties, the matter has been peacefully and amicably settled between the parties, without any influence, coercion or consideration of any kind from any side.

8. In support of his case the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the case of 'Dapyooki Dkhar & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr. in Crl. Petn. No. 34 of 2021' wherein vide order dated 1.10.2021 this Court in a dispute between the parties involving non-cognizable and non-compoundable offences on a compromise between the parties has allowed the same and has quashed the proceedings of the criminal case thereof. Another case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the case of 'Ramgopal & Anr. v. State of Madh