Page No.# 1/10
GAHC040008442023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : Crl.Petn./113/2023
Pate Ruja and 2 Ors.
S/o Late Pate Salla,
Permanent Resident of Papu Nallah, PO/PS Naharlagun, District Papum Pare,
Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Takio Ari Pate
Age:
Occupation :
3: Kaling Taja
Age:
Occupation
VERSUS
THE STATE OF AP
Represented through the Public Prosecutor, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.
Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara
Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP
Page No.# 2/10
BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Date : 29.02.2024
Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners herein, who are the informant, victim and the accused
respectively, in connection with Naharlagun Police Station Case No. 49/21 dated
26.03.2021, registered under Sections 452/324 of the IPC have instituted the
present proceedings for quashing of the FIR dated 26.03.2021, leading to
registration of the said Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 49/21 along with Charge-sheet
No. 169/2021 dated 02.09.2021, under G.R. Case No. 206/2021 filed by the police
on conclusion of investigation, against the petitioner no. 3.
3. The petitioner no. 1 had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on
26.03.2021 informing the police of Naharlagun police station that the petitioner no.
3 had trespassed into the house of the petitioner no. 2 and attacked her with a
Dao causing grievous hurt to her head and fingers without any valid reason. On
receipt of the said FIR, the police registered a case being Naharlagun P.S. Case No.
49/2021, under Sections 452/324 of the IPC. The police on conclusion of the
investigations have submitted a Charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 169/2021
dated 02.09.2021, under G.R. Case No. 206/2021 before the Court of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Itanagar capital complex, Yupia. The said proceedings in
G.R. Case No. 206/2021 was endorsed by the learned Chief Magistrate Judicial,
Yupia to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia for trial and
Page No.# 3/10
disposal and the same is pending trial as on date and the charges are yet to be
framed therein.
4. The facts leading to the lodging of the said FIR dated 26.03.2021 is that on
25.03.2021, at around 23:30 hours, the petitioner no. 3 had trespassed into the
house of the daughter-in-law of the informant i.e., the petitioner no. 1 and had
attacked her with a Dao causing grievous hurt on her head and fingers without
valid reasons. It has been brought on record that the petitioner no. 3 is working as
a contingency employee in the office of the Director, ATI, Naharlagun, wherein the
petitioner no. 2 is also employed. It is contended in the writ petition that the
accused and the victim are both residing at the same complex called the Bida
complex as tenant and both were working in the same establishment. The
petitioner no. 3 had on 25.03.2021 along with some of his colleague had gone for
a pre-mopin party after closing of the office and consumed some local wine and
got drunk. The petitioner no. 3 had also while returning home fell into a drain and
had got wet. On reaching the rented premises wherein the petitioner no. 3 was
residing, he could not enter into the premises as the main gate was locked. The
petitioner, thereafter, entered the premises through a small gate and went to the
room of the victim, the petitioner no. 2 to seek help to take her Scotty inside the
rental campus, which she denied to help him at late night. Infuriated, the
petitioner no. 3 entered into the kitchen of the petitioner no. 2 and took a Dao to
break open the locked gate and since the petitioner no. 3 was in a drunken state
and on seeing him holding a Dao, the petitioner no. 2, the victim fearing that he
would hurt someone with the Dao, tried to stop him and during the pushing and
pulling that followed, the petitioner no. 2 was hurt by the Dao. It was contended
that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner no. 3 to house trespass
and or, had not made any preparation for the purpose and or, for causing any hurt
to the petitioner no. 2 or to assault her. However, the said incident occasioning, the
Page No.# 4/10
brother-in-law of the petitioner no. 2 i.e., the petitioner no. 1 herein had filed the
said FIR on 26.03.2021 before the police of the Naharlagun Police Station.
5. It is stated that after the said incident, the petitioners being colleagues have
resolved their differences and there is no any enmity and or grievance either on
the part of the petitioner no. 1 or the petitioner no. 2 against the petitioner no. 3
and the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2, no longer desires to proceed with the
criminal proceedings so initiated against the petitioner no. 3. The resolution as
brought about in the matter between the petitioners were reduced into writing by
way of execution of a Deed of Settlement dated 30.05.2023 and therein have
contended that the matter was amicably settled and the parties were co-habiting
peacefully and not desirous of prosecuting the criminal proceedings as pending
against the petitioner no. 3.
6. The Sections involved being not compoundable under Section 320 of the
Cr.P.C., the petitioners have jointly instituted the present proceedings praying for
quashing of the criminal proceeding now pending against the petitioner no. 3.
7. The learned counsels for the parties have made submissions in line with the
facts and circumstances and noted herein above in this order.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the parties and also
considered the materials available on record.
9. This Court had vide order dated 21.11.2023, required the Investigating officer
Page No.# 5/10
of the case to collect the Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) of the victim and to place
the same before this Court. Accordingly, the Medico Legal Certificate was obtained
and the same was placed before this Court by the Investigating officer and therein,
it is seen that the injuries sustained by the petitioner no. 2 were so sustained on
her Face and were ‘Simple’ in nature but, was caused by a sharp weapon.
10. The issue arising in the present proceedings is as to whether this Court has
the power, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving
non-compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at between parties.
The said issue, was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S.
Joshi V. State of Haryana & Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and the
Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code could not be inflexible or could there be lying a rigid formula to be
followed by the Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case, but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It was further held
that it is well settled that these powers have no limit, of course, where there is
more power; it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while
exercising such powers.
11. The decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi
(supra) came to be doubted when the Special Leave Petition in Gian Singh V.
State of Punjab came up for hearing before a two bench Judge and accordingly
the matter was referred to a larger bench. The larger bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Gian Singh V. State of Punjab and
Anr., Reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that the case of B. S. Joshi
(supra) was correctly decided and held as follows:-
Page No.# 6/10
“58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to
the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although
offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal
proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the
dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the
ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which
have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously
endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-
doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the
victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made
compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity
under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at
all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil
flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or
such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating
to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the
offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective
of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court
may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or
criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there
is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the
criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own
facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised
thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the
power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has
to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to
the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
Page No.# 7/10
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed
even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute.
Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for
any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash
criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and
if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well
within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
12. Having considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
context of the power of this Court to quash proceedings involving non-
compoundable Sections in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
issue involved in the present proceedings is hereby considered.
13. It is a settled law that the offences which are non-compoundable cannot be
compounded by a criminal Court in purported exercise of its powers conferred
under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to
Page No.# 8/10
alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which is the exclusive
domain of legislature. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an
offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against
invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
This Court, keeping in view of the particular facts and circumstances of the case
and for justifiable reasons can invoke the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.
14. This Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of offence and the fact that
the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented
to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise
of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable.
15. This Court, can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence
beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to
ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the
very object of the administration of criminal justice system. Criminal proceedings
involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a
private nature can be annulled irrespective of the stage the criminal proceedings are
at.
16. Having noticed the powers available to this Court, under the provisions of
Section 482 of the Code, the weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances
involved in the present proceedings, I am inclined to invoke the inherent powers of
this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the criminal proceedings existing
against the petitioner no. 2 for the following reasons:-
Page No.# 9/10
(1) Firstly, the occurrence involved in the present proceedings can be categorized
as a dispute between the petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 only occasioning on account of
the circumstances as noticed herein above without any premeditation to commit the same
on the part of the petitioner no. 3.
(2) Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, by the petitioner no. 2 on account of
assault by the petitioner no. 3, does not appear to exhibit mental depravity of the petitioner
no. 3 or the commission of the said offence cannot be said to be of such a serious nature
that quashing of which would override public interest.
(3) Thirdly, even after lodging of the said FIR dated 25.07.2021, the petitioners
have reconciled their differences and were co-existing as neighbors/colleagues and having
reconciled their differences in their own volition without any coercion or compulsion had
reduced such reconciliation in writing by executing a Deed of Settlement dated 30.05.2023.
Accordingly, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the
criminal proceedings would cause great prejudice to the accused petitioner no. 3 despite full
and complete settlement arrived at in the matter with the victim.
17. In view of the conclusions reached herein above and having considered the
offence involved in the matter and the reconciliation arrived at between the
petitioners, this Court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia against the petitioner no. 3,
consequently, the G.R. Case No. 206/2021, under Sections 452/324 of the IPC
(arising out of Naharlagun P.S. Case no. 49/2021) along with the FIR dated
26.03.2021 and the charge-sheet being Charge-sheet no. 169/2021, stands
quashed.
Page No.# 10/10
18. The criminal revision petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant