Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1505 (GAU)

Sukleswar Das v. State of Assam

2018-10-04

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Thakuria, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. G. Kakoti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This is an application under section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quashment of the order, dated 23.11.2017, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Amingaon) in GR Case No. 1153/2016 taking cognizance of the offence under section 498A/34 of the IPC and the entire proceeding in the said case. 3. I have perused the petition as well as the annexures annexed therewith. 4. The accusation in the FIR is that the victim-wife got married with the petitioner No. 1 on 17.2.2014 and thereafter the accused-petitioners subjected her to physical and mental torture due to her failure to meet unlawful demand of dowry. She was also assaulted. On receipt of the FIR on such accusations, the Palashbari Police Station registered a case, being Palashbari P.S. Case No. 247/2016 under section 498A/34 of the IPC. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet against the accused-petitioners was filed by the Investigating Agency under section 498A/34 of the IPC. 6. Vide order, dated 23.11.2017, the learned trial court had taken cognizance of the offences against the accused-petitioners under section 498A/34 of the IPC. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners has categorically submitted in paragraph 7 of the petition that both the parties are living together after settling the issues between them and the informant/victim does not want to pursue the case any further. 7. The case under section 498A of the IPC is not compoundable under section 320 of the IPC. Now the question is whether this court, in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.PC can quash the aforesaid GR Case, in view of the settlement between the parties. 8. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “61… [T]he 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 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 the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Ac 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings 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 question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 9. The inherent power of this court 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 a 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. 10. In the instant case, the dispute is between the husband and wife and the family members of the husband. The family which broke down due to the incident alleged in the FIR appears to be no more the reason for breaking down of their relation, in view of the fact that the husband and the wife, i.e., the accused-petitioner No. 1 and the informant/victim have started their conjugal life afresh, and, therefore, the informant/victim does not want to pursue the prosecution any further. It has been submitted that an affidavit has been sworn in by the victim-wife to the effect that the matter has been settled between the parties and the affidavit is available in the record. This court has taken into consideration the said affidavit also. It is in the best interest of the society as well as the family that the matter needs to be looked into. Otherwise also, in the event the prosecution is allowed to continue, it is unlikely that the same will result in conviction in view of the present stand of the victim-wife that she has settled the matter with her husband leading to an inference that she is unlikely to lead any evidence against the petitioner No. 1-husband or family members of the husband. 11. In that view of the matter, continuation of the proceeding, in the aforesaid of GR case, would be an abuse of the process of the court, and, therefore, to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Cr.PC, the said GR Case No. 1153/2016 is quashed. 12. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of at this order stage itself.