Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 7593
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Budi Habung, J
Tadar Tali and 2 Ors – Appellant
Versus
The State of AP – Respondent
Crl.Petn./162/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Lissing Perme, 1 P Tsering, K Posi, Wintet Sawin, A Perme, Signal Yirang, Krishna Dubey
For the Respondents: P P of AP
The court upheld that criminal proceedings can be quashed for private disputes when the parties reach an amicable settlement, absent significant societal impact.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceeding - Proceedings against the accused quashed as parties reached amicable settlement and cause of death was cardiac arrest, not coercive action of the accused - High Court exercise of inherent powers permitted for private disputes not serious to society. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(B) Mutual Settlement - Amicable resolution between parties holding importance especially when misunderstanding led to false FIR and parties wanted to maintain cordial relations. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners jointly filed to quash Sessions Case No.05/2024 under alleged offences of IPC after an amicable settlement clarifying wrongful attribution of cause of death due to misunderstanding. The cause was later identified as cardiac arrest, not linked to the accused’s actions.
Findings of Court:
The proceeding was quashed based on private nature of the dispute and agreement of parties.
Issues: Key issues involved whether inherent powers could be exercised under the Cr.P.C for non-compoundable offences in light of settlement among parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the proceedings could be quashed due to amicable settlement and absence of serious societal impact, relying on precedents from the Supreme Court affirming such applications. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: The proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court can quash non-compoundable offences based on private settlements. (Para 11) |
| 2. the proceedings were quashed to secure justice and maintain peace between the parties. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER
Date : 11-08-2025 Heard Mr. S. Yirang, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This petition has been jointly filed by the accused, informant and the victim’s wife under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973 ( Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023) seeking quashing and setting aside of the Sessions Case No.05/2024 arising out of Nirjuli P.S. Case No.91/2023 under Section
307/304/506 of IPC pending before the court of Sessions Judge, Yupia.
3. The petitioner No.1 is the accused, the petitioner No.2 is the informant and the petitioner No.3 is the wife of the victim(deceased) in the above Sessions Case No.05/2024 now pending before the Sessions Judge, Yupia.
4. The case leading to the filing of this petition is that on 17.09.2023, the petitioner No.2 lodged an written FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Nirjuli police station against the accused/petitioner No.1stating therein that during the heated argument between the accused and the deceased late Techi Tagar, the accused/ petitioner No.1 threatened the deceased with dire consequences and in the meanwhile, the deceased collapsed on the spot due to pressure and started to bleed from the mouth. He was then rushed to Hospital (TRIHMS)where he expired, and requested the police to investigate,as according to the allegation in the FIR, the act leading to the death of the deceased was suspected to be an intentional act of the accused to harm the deceased. Accordingly, the police registered the above P.S. Case under Section 307/304/506 of IPC.
5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against the accused/petitioner No.1 under Section 307/304/506 of IPC. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was then committed to the Session Judge, Yupia where the case is now pending trial.
6. It is submitted that in the meantime, the parties have amicably settled the matter by executing a Deed of mutual Settlement dated 19.03.2024. In the Deed of Mutual Settlement, the parties have clarified that during the heated argument, the deceased felt down and collapsed on the spot for which he was evacuated to the hospital (TRIHMS), Naharlagun, where he was declared brought dead. However, due to the misunderstanding between the parties, the death of the deceased was misconstrued as died due to the coercive action of the accused, leading to the filing of FIR against the accused petitioner No.1 with a request to investigate the cause of death of the deceased. It is further submitted that, later on, the informant came to know from the post mortem Report that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to cardiac arrest, and not due to any coercive action of the accused or any homicidal attempt.
7. The settlement also contained that the accused and the informant are immediate neighbour, and in order to maintain cordial relationship and for peaceful co-existence, the parties have amicably settled the matter by clarifying the misunderstanding between the parties. The informant and the wife of the victim (deceased) has categorically expressed that they no longer have any grievance against the accused/petitioner No.1 and they do not want to pursue with the case.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and also perused the record.
9. The present case arose due to the collapse of the deceased late Techi Tagar during the verbal confrontation with the accused petitioner and his subsequent death which led the informant to file FIR for enquiry regarding the cause of deceased’s death. However, the postmortem Report confirmed that the cause of death of the deceased was due to cardiac arrest. It is seen that in the meantime the parti
