Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 14 (MEG)

Shiruplang I Papang v. State of Meghalaya

2017-03-27

VED PARKASH VAISH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ved Parkash Vaish, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein referred as 'the Code') for quashing of the FIR registered vide Madanrting P.S. No. 31, dated 23.04.2016 under Section 279/338 IPC and subsequent charge sheet No. 19/2016 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 22nd April, 2016, the petitioner No. 1 namely Shri Shiruplang I Papang was driving a truck bearing registration No. ML-05C-8986 and on reaching Law-u-Sib locality with the truck loaded with LPG gas cylinders, he tried to park the truck by the side of the road from where the cylinders would be distributed to the consumers. He tried to reverse the truck back and at that time the truck hit the petitioner No. 2 namely Smti Rinky Chettri who was standing at the back side of the truck and as a result of which she received injuries. The petitioner No. 2 had to be taken to Bethany Hospital for medical treatment and the staff of the hospital suggested to the petitioner No. 3, who is the husband of petitioner No. 2 (injured), to lodge a report with the police. Accordingly, FIR No. 31 under Section 279/338 IPC was registered against the petitioner No. 1 on 23.04.2016. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. 3. It is stated by the petitioners that they have settled the matter and compromise deed was executed on 04th May, 2016. It is also stated that on 09th February, 2017 a joint petition seeking permission to compound the offence was filed before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, East Khasi Hills, Shillong which was not accepted by the Court. 4. It is further stated by the petitioners that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and the petitioner No. 2, who is injured and petitioner No. 3, who is complainant have no grievance against the petitioner No. 1. It is also stated that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 do not want to pursue with the present case. 5. It is also stated that the nature of injuries on petitioner No. 2 is not grievous and the petitioner No. 2 has fully recovered. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 has paid the medical expenditure incurred by petitioner No. 2. 6. 5. It is also stated that the nature of injuries on petitioner No. 2 is not grievous and the petitioner No. 2 has fully recovered. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 has paid the medical expenditure incurred by petitioner No. 2. 6. The petitioner No. 2 (injured) and petitioner No. 3 (complainant) are present in Court today and identified by their counsel as well as the Investigating Officer Shri B.N. Arengh (U.B.S.I). The petitioner No. 2, Smti Rinky Chettri and petitioner No. 3, Shri Krishna Chettri confirm that they have amicably settled the matter with the petitioner No. 1 and compromise agreement was executed on 04th May, 2016. The petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 also confirm that they do not want to pursue the present FIR any more. They also confirm that petitioner No. 2 has recovered from the injuries and the nature of injuries are not grievous. 7. It is a settled principle of law that High Court can quash criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The quashing of offences or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement is not the same thing as compounding of offence. The two powers under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 of the Code are distinct and different although the ultimate result may be the same. 8. In the case of 'Gian Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another' reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon'ble Supreme observed as under: "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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. 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statute like the 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 overwhelming and predominantly civil flavour stand on different a 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 dispute where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 9. In view of the fact that dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved on their free will, volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuation of the proceedings, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question. 10. Consequently, the Madanrting P.S. Case No. 31, dated 23.04.2016 under Section 279/338 IPC and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. 11. The parties have signed on this order sheet in acknowledgement of their statements made before the Court. 12. The petition stands disposed of.