Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1370 (GAU)

Sojo Sopung v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2015-11-03

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lobsang Tenzin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Tado, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing for the respondent State. This criminal petition, under Sections 401/397 read with Sections 482/483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), is filed against the order, dated 26.09.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, rejecting the petition, being Misc. Application No. 89/2014, filed by the petitioners for compounding G.R. Case No. 38/2012 corresponding to Seppa P.S. Case No. 35/2012, under Sections 448/325 IPC, and also praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No. 38/12 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa. 2. The petitioners herein are close relatives. The Petitioner No. 1 is the aunt of Petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is married to one Sri Dugu Sopung and Petitioner No. 2 is married to one Sri G.R. Wange. 3. The Petitioner No. 2, on 24.04.2012, lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Seppa Police Station, stating that on 23.04.2012, at around 2 PM, the Petitioner No. 1 attempted to kill her with sharp-cutting weapons, which were then in her possession. Due to the assault made, she became senseless till 24.04.2012 and was under medical treatment. 4. This led to registration of Seppa P.S. Case No. 35/2012. 5. The police submitted charge-sheet on 08.07.2012, against the Petitioner No. 1., stating that during the course of investigation, a prima facie case was found well established under Sections 448/325 IPC (Annexure- 7 to the petition). 6. Mr. Tenzin, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present petitioners being the accused and the victim, entered into a Deed of Settlement, on 15.06.2012, to settle the matter amicably and the Petitioner No. 1 undertook to defray all medical expenses of Petitioner No. 2 and promised not to repeat such action in future. The Petitioner No. 2 also pardoned the Petitioner No. 1, being her relative. 7. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Tenzin, that their respective husbands also entered into and executed an Agreement, dated 16.06.2012, in presence of gaonburas and Panchayat members. 8. The Petitioner No. 2 also pardoned the Petitioner No. 1, being her relative. 7. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Tenzin, that their respective husbands also entered into and executed an Agreement, dated 16.06.2012, in presence of gaonburas and Panchayat members. 8. The husband of Petitioner No. 2/informant also submitted a letter, dated 13.07.2012, to the Officer-in-Charge of Seppa Police Station on the subject of withdrawal of case filed against the Petitioner No. 1 by his wife due to resolution of the dispute outside the Court as per the customary systems and laws of the tribals of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 9. However, by then, charge-sheet had already been submitted. On receipt of summons, the petitioners submitted an application, numbered as Misc. Application No. 89/2014, under Section 320 of the Code, duly supported by affidavits of both the parties, for compounding the offence and praying for discharge of the accused persons. 10. By order dated 26.09.2014, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, refused to grant permission to the petitioners for compounding the offence under Section 325 IPC on the ground that offence is a serious offence and that it was committed by a woman upon a woman. 11. It has also been submitted by Mr. Tenzin that the learned trial Magistrate, by not exercising the discretion to permit the petitioners to compound the offence, has caused grave miscarriage of justice as the parties being close relatives, had resolved their differences and had amicably settled their matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 12. Mr. Tado, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that having regard to the fact that the parties have compromised the matter outside the Court, the learned Magistrate ought to have exercised discretion in favour of compounding the offence as the same would have promoted harmony and peace between the family members. 13. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 14. Under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has the discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. 13. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 14. Under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has the discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. Such compounding of offence under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences and in non-serious offences. When the parties reach an amicable settlement in respect of the offences listed in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible. But it requires the permission of the Court. 15. Section 448 IPC is compoundable at the instance of the person in possession of the property trespassed upon. However, so far as the offence under Section 325 IPC is concerned, the person to whom hurt is caused, may compound the offence with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending. 16. Inherent power of the High Court, under Section 482 of the Code, is of wide amplitude and cannot be fettered with by any statutory limitation. Thus, under Section 482 of the Code, High Court can quash proceedings in those offences also, which are non-compoundable, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, however, must be exercised with due care and caution and such a power is not to be exercised in prosecutions, which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that such offences are private in nature. These offences have a serious impact on the Society. Offences under special Statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, or the offences committed by public servants, while working in that capacity, also stand on a different footing and merely because the parties have compromised, may not warrant exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. Criminal offences which are predominantly of civil character, cases arising out of matrimonial disputes or family disputes, on the other hand, stand on a different plank altogether. 17. Criminal offences which are predominantly of civil character, cases arising out of matrimonial disputes or family disputes, on the other hand, stand on a different plank altogether. 17. In this application, revisional power of the High Court, under Section 397/401 of the Code is also invoked to assail the correctness and legality of the order dated 26.09.2014 and, therefore, exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not be necessary. 18. Here is a case of assault involving a niece and an aunt. However, they had settled their differences almost immediately after the occurrence and had buried the hatchet and had moved on with life. Materials on record do not show or depict any gross depravity on the part of the petitioner No. 1. On the basis of the materials on record, I am also satisfied that the settlement is genuine, prompted by the desire and will of the parties to live in harmony and peace. By displaying a rare sense of sensitivity, the petitioner No. 2 had forgiven and pardoned the petitioner No. 1. 19. It appears that the learned Trial Court was guided by the principle of deterrent theory of punishment, while refusing to grant permission to compound the offence. Deterrent theory, as the guiding principle, generally speaking, is more relevant when a particular crime is to be treated as a crime against the society, or the crime, by its very nature, falls in the category of a heinous crime and, in case of such offences, the settlement between the offender and the victim must give way to the societal demand that the offender be brought to book. 20. In this case, when the informant and her husband had taken a position not to pursue the matter, the possibility of conviction of the accused also gets significantly diminished. 21. Compounding the offences, in the circumstances, would definitely foster better relations between the parties and continuance of the proceedings would have the potentiality of driving a wedge, splitting two families asunder. 22. Considering the matter in its entirety, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate was not correct in refusing to accord permission. It was a fit case where the learned Magistrate ought to have granted permission and compounded the offence. 23. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, is hereby set aside and quashed. It was a fit case where the learned Magistrate ought to have granted permission and compounded the offence. 23. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, is hereby set aside and quashed. In view of the above, the offences are compounded and the case shall stand closed in terms of compounding of the offences.