Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 17 (MEG)

Leadingstar Niang v. State of Meghalaya

2018-06-04

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. Case No. 46 (3) of 2018 of P.S. Jowai as registered on the basis of FIR dated 01.03.2018 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 336/426/427/506/436/511/34 IPC, is sought to be quashed by invoking powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The offences punishable under Sections 336, and 436/511 are not compoundable. 2. Vide order dated 13.03.2018, while noticing the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the parties intend to settle the matter, they were given the liberty to move an appropriate application before the trial court concerned and to get their statements recorded. 3. The statements of the parties i.e., the complainant and the petitioners recorded by the learned trial court have been submitted in a sealed envelope. Perusal of the statement of the complainant suggests that there shall be no prospect of the case on completion of investigation to culminate in filing charge-sheet against the petitioners. The complainant in his statement has made it clear that no injuries were caused and house was also not burnt down. Initially, he was not inclined to lodge FIR but was prompted by some third party to do so. Now, he has settled the matter with the accused (petitioners) voluntarily. 4. It is clear from his statements that the case has been registered on 01.03.2018 whereas they have entered into compromise on 08.03.2018. The principles to be followed in allowing the parties to settle the dispute are that the offence committed must not be heinous or anti-social. 5. The statement of the complainant to the effect that no injuries were inflicted coupled with the fact that the house was not damaged is getting supported by the allegation that there was only an attempt to burn the house. 6. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.No. 1723 of 2017 "Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr." in para 11 while referring to Narinder Singh's Case, it has been observed that the timing of settlement is of significance in determining as to whether the jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised. v. State of Gujarat and Anr." in para 11 while referring to Narinder Singh's Case, it has been observed that the timing of settlement is of significance in determining as to whether the jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised. Observations made in Narinder Singh's case quoted therein are for facility of reference quoted hereunder: "29.7...Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because for the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on the merits..." 7. The relevant portion of the observations as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh's case as quoted squarely covers the case of the petitioner because the case has been registered on 01.03.2018 whereas the parties have settled their internal differences on 08.03.2018. When the complainant has not suffered any injury nor, in effect, any portion of his house was damaged, then further investigation would be otiose, when it is so, then to allow it to continue would definitely amount to abuse of the process of law. 8. In the above referred judgment as also the judgment reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 at para 61, it has been held that the powers of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings, FIR or Complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offence under Section 320 of the Code. It has further been held that inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines engrafted in such power viz,: (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 9. Settlement of such cases which involve non-compoundable offences depends upon the facts and features of each case. Nature and gravity of the crime is to be considered. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the background of the date of alleged commission of offence and the date of compromise within a span of seven days, then taking into account the statements of the complainant as referred above coupled with the facts that the complainant has been prompted by some third party to lodge the FIR, it would be in the interest of justice to promote the settlement as has been reached between the parties i.e., the complainant and the accused. Even otherwise, if investigation is allowed or even if charge-sheet is filed such cases would depend upon the testimony of the complainant. When the complainant's statement recorded suggest non-commission of offence, to allow continuation of the proceedings shall not only be abuse of the process of the court but shall also amount to waste of time. No useful object would be achieved by allowing continuation of the proceedings therefore, it is a fit case persuading the Court to exercise powers under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 Such type of proceedings are required to be truncated so as to promote harmony between the petitioner and the complainant. 11. In the final analysis, petition deserves acceptance, same is accepted. The case as registered shall be closed by the police. 12. Disposed of as above.