Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2 (GAU)

Dipul CH. Lahkar & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr.

2015-01-05

M.R.PATHAK

body2015
M.R. Pathak, J. -- Heard Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.2, the informant. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482/320 of the Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceeding of G.R. Case No.130/2011 arising out of Kamalpur P.S. Case No.42/2011 under Sections147/148/447/323/326/307 of the IPC presently pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia, Kamrup(Rural) as the matter of dispute between the parties have already been compromised. 3. A brief fact of the case is that the opposite party No. 2, the informant lodged an FIR on 11.02.2011 before Officer-in-Charge of Kamalpur Police Station stating that on 10.02.2011 at mid night around 12 a.m. the petitioners entered into the compound of his house unauthorizedly while he was sleeping with his family members, knock at the door and called him up and when he came out the petitioners beaten him up with bamboo stick and injured him. When he sought for help his son came out to rescue him and the petitioners with the intend to kill his son hit him with a dagger in his abdomen caused grievous injury and also beaten up his wife. 4. The petitioners also lodged a cross FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Rangia Police Station on 11.02.2011 against the respondent No.2 and his son which was registered as Rangia 42/2011 under Section 341/324/325/34 of the IPC. The investigating Officer after investigation of the said Kamalpur P.S. Case 42/2011 filed the Charge-sheet in the case. During pendency of the said G.R.Case No.130/2011 before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia, Kamrup(Rural) arising out of Rangia P.S. Case No.42/2011. The petitioners and the respondent No.2 have resolve their dispute outside the Court and entered into an written agreement executed on 18.07.2014 at Rangia before the Notary Public vide registered No.822 dated 18.07.2014 which has been annexed in this petition as annexure-5. 5. The respondent No.2, informant of Kamalpur P.S. Case No.42/2011 filed an affidavit in this matter on 27.10.2014 stating that he and the petitioners are resident of same village and their disputes have been amicably settled on compromise and they are living peacefully and happily in their said locality. 5. The respondent No.2, informant of Kamalpur P.S. Case No.42/2011 filed an affidavit in this matter on 27.10.2014 stating that he and the petitioners are resident of same village and their disputes have been amicably settled on compromise and they are living peacefully and happily in their said locality. The said respondent No.2 also admits about the correctness of the agreement dated 18.07.2014 (annexure-V) of the petition and he is not willing proceed further in the criminal case being kamalpur P.S. Case No.42/2011 corresponding G.R. No.130/2011. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 as well as in the case of Narinder Singh and others -Vs- State of Punjab and others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that - “Power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be distinguished form the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences. No doubt that under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceeding even in those cases which are not compoundable where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, the said power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. Such a power is not to be exercised in that prosecution which involves heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, docility etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly for the offences alleged to have been committed under the special statute like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offence committed by the public servant while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. Similarly for the offences alleged to have been committed under the special statute like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offence committed by the public servant while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. On the other hand those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” 7. The respondent No.2/informant has clearly stated that the dispute between him and the petitioners/accused persons have been amicably settled and to that extent both the parties have entered in to an agreement dated 18.07.2014 and he does not have any further grievances against the petitioners/accused persons and both the parties are living peacefully and happily in their own village and he does not want that the petitioners/accused persons be punished under Sections 147/148/447/323/307 of the IPC in terms of his FIR dated 11.02.2011 being Kamalpur P.S. Case No.42/2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.130/2011 presently pending before learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia, Kamrup(Rural). 8. In light of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh and other such cases like Dimpey Gujral Vs. Union Territory through administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 497 , the Court is of the view that in this case if the continuation of criminal proceedings is allowed, it would tantamount to abuse of process of law and would defeat ends of justice, as the offences involved in the case are personal in nature and allowing the parties to bury their hatches, it is expected that it would bring peace and amity between the two contesting parties. 9. 9. In the circumstances of the case and for the ends of justice, the proceedings of the G.R. Case No.130/2011, pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia, Kamrup(Rural) as well as the FIR dated 11.02.2011 filed by the respondent No.2, informant being Kamalpur P.S. Case No.42/2011 are hereby set aside and quashed. 10. The bailor/surety, if any, is discharged from his/their liability and the bail bond(s) stands cancelled. 11. In terms of the above, this criminal petition is allowed. 12. No order as to costs.