ORDER

Date : 28-01-2021 Heard Mr. G. Jalan, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

Both these criminal petitions arises out of the FIR lodged by the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle, Kamrup (Metro), Assam on the basis of which Sonapur P.S. Case No. 241/2016 was registered under Sections 120B/ 420/ 468/ 34 IPC, and as such, they are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order.

Mr. Jalan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that a land acquisition proceeding was initiated for acquiring a plot of land measuring 4 Bighas 2 Kathas 5 Lechas, belonging to the petitioner Sri Jiten Bongjang. Aggrieved by the aforesaid land acquisition proceeding, the petitioner Sri Jiten Bongjang filed a writ petition before the High Court. As the land was required for the purpose of a public institution and there was some urgency, the District administration organised a meeting with the petitioner Sri Jiten Bongjang and some other local people to sortout the matter amicably which was attended by the petitioners Sri Jiten Bongjang, Sri ajay Paddar and Sri Sanjay Agarwal and others. The said meeting was held on 3.11.2016, where it was decided that the petitioner Sri Jiten Bongjang should withdraw the writ petitioner within 48 hours. It was also decided in the said meeting, that the payment of compensation which the petitioner Sri Jiten Bongjang was entitled shall be settled in due course. However, the petitioner did not withdraw the writ petition within the stipulated time of 48 hours and therefore the instant FIR was loded on 6.12.2016 by the Circle Officer only to exert pressure on the petitioner.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the meeting did not decide the mode of payment of the compensation and therefore, the petitioner could not withdraw the writ petition. It is further submitted that later on, the matter was amicably settled and the petitioner had withdrawn the writ petition. The other petitioners did not have any personal interest in the land acquisition proceeding and they attended the meeting organised by the District Administration only to assist the petitioner Sri Jiten Bongjang, who did not know English. Mr. Jalan further submits that it was agreed between the parties, that the criminal proceeding shall be withdrawn. Since the police case was registered under the penal provisions which are not compoundable, the instant petitions have been filed for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also supported by relevant document annexed with the petitions as Annexure- 14 to the criminal petitions and annexure -1 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. The gravamen of the allegation made in the FIR, was that the petitioner obstructed the process of acquisition of the land by making excessive demand for compensation. It was also alleged that fake bill was submitted for excessive amount by the petitioner.

Having regard to the nature of accusation made in the complaint in its entirety which basically involved a civil dispute regarding payment of compensation of the petitioner Sri Jiten Bongjang and that the same has been amicably settled between the parties, this court is of the view, that no cause of justice would be served by allowing the criminal proceeding to continue, except causing harassment to the petitioners. Accordingly, this criminal proceeding arising out of Sonapur P.S. Case No. 241/2016 under Sections 120B/ 420/ 468/ 34 IPC and any other proceeding incidental thereto is hereby quashed.

Interim order, if any shall stand vacated.

Both these criminal petition are disposed of.

.....

JUDGE Comparing Assistant