Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 198 (MEG)

Saindur Mame Kshiar v. State of Meghalaya

2019-10-11

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

body2019
ORDER : Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) filed jointly for quashing of criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 45 of 2017 under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act pending in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Mawkyrwat. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that the criminal machinery was set into motion upon the institution of the FIR by the petitioner No. 2 on 22.08.2017 before the Officer-in-Charge, Mawkyrwat Police Station, Mawkyrwat to the effect that he had uploaded her videos with him in social media without her consent. Thereafter, the police registered a case being Sadar Police Station G.R. Case No. 45 of 2017 under Section 506 IPC read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act. On completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner No. 1 under Section 506 IPC read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act being charge sheet No. 23/2017 dated 22.08.2017 and the case is still pending adjudication before the Additional District Magistrate (J), South West Khasi Hills District being G.R. Case No. 45 of 2017 under Section 506 IPC read with Section 67A of I.T. Act. According to the petitioner No. 1, during the pendency of the instant case, he and petitioner No. 2 have amicably settled the matter and had also entered into a Deed of Compromise dated 27.07.2019. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner No. 1 that he and petitioner No. 2 had also agreed and made a statement before the learned Additional District Magistrate (J), South West Khasi Hills District on 02.08.2019 in which they have both stated that they have settled the matter between them and does not want to pursue with the instant case as they are now living as husband and wife and also wish to start a new life as a family together. 5. 5. Petitioner No. 1 asserts that a Compromise Deed dated 25.07.2019 had been entered into between him and petitioner No. 2 and she does not want to pursue with the matter any further as such continuance of subsequent proceedings in G.R. Case No. 45 of 2017 in Sadar Police Station under Section 506 IPC read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act would not serve any purpose. Hence, the present petition for quashing the FIR under Section 506 IPC read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act dated 22.08.2017 and also G.R. Case No. 45 of 2017. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner No. 1 submits that the statement of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 on oath has been recorded in the Trial Court on 02.08.2019 appended at Annexure-IV along with this petition. 7. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Apex Court therein has laid down broad principles and guidelines for quashing of FIR on the basis of settlement between the parties. It has also laid down that quashment of the proceedings depends on facts and circumstances of each case. 8. The broad principles enumerated in Narinder Singh's case (supra) are as under:- "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. 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. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. 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. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, 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 special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly 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. 29.5. 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. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate part of the body, nature of weapon used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timing of settlement play a crucial role. 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 of 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. 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 merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." 9. The nature of offence in the present case would not be termed to be of the category of heinous crime. Moreover, as recorded in the statement on oath by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 02.08.2019, the petitioner No. 2 does not want to pursue with the case any further. For ready reference, the statements of the petitioner No. 1 (accused) and petitioner No. 2 (complainant and victim) recorded on 02.08.2019 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate read as under:- "STATEMENT OF SHRI SAINDUR MAME KSHIAR (ACCUSED) ON OATH We were lovers but I have settled with her in a living-in relationship right from the beginning. We have been living like husband and wife even before this case came up. We are legally wedded couple now. I don't want to dwell in the past anymore since as a family we are more focussed on the bright future of our family. Our wedlock in the result of the mutual love and respect we have for each other. This case will only hamper and disturb the family peace. We are legally wedded couple now. I don't want to dwell in the past anymore since as a family we are more focussed on the bright future of our family. Our wedlock in the result of the mutual love and respect we have for each other. This case will only hamper and disturb the family peace. The complainant who is now my wife does not want to pursue this case anymore. I humbly request the honourable court to kindly dispose off this case on humanitarian grounds. So that we as a family can live peacefully and forget the past and fast as possible. R.O. & A.C. Shri Saindur Mame Kshiar STATEMENT OF SMTI. DAROILIN LYNGDOH (Complainant and victim) ON OATH I and Saindur (my husband) loved each other. In rage, anger and shame during the incident, I filed a case against him since I was totally confused at that time. However, the mutual love for each other united us and now we are happily married. It is a decision I made thinking about our life and the promises we made as lovers. I was already in a living-in relationship with him and I am happy now that we have settled down as legally wedded couple. We share our dream together to make our marriage a meaningful one. We plan to have children and to live life as normal couples. I do not want to pursue this case anymore since it will be like strangulating my own family. I beg the Honourable Court to kindly dispose off the case so that we can lead a normal and happy life. R.O. & A.C. Smti. Daroilin Lyngdoh" 10. In the analysis and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh's case (supra) and examining the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for quashing the FIR. Accordingly, G.R. Case 45 of 2017 under Section 506 IPC read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act registered on 22.08.2017 by Mawkyrwat Police Station and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. 11. Criminal petition stands disposed of as above.