Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 22 (GAU)

Taying Anthony v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2019-01-09

NANI TAGIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Nani Tagia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Hage Lampu, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Mama Tang, learned Addl. P.P. Arunachal Pradesh. This is an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of he Fist Information Report (FIR) in Naharlagun Police Station Case No. 73/2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 380/2017 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, on the ground that the accused in the case as well as the complainant of the case, have amicably settled their differences by a mutual compromise agreement dated 16.06.2017. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner No. 2 namely, Sri Techi Tajum lodged a complaint against the petitioner No. 1 namely, Sri Taying Anthony, to the Office-in-Charge of Naharlagun Police Station on 29.05.2017, stating that the petitioner No. 1 had entered into his private residence on 28.05.2017 and showed him a pistol and then went away. After two hours, the petitioner No. 1 came back with a gun pistol and fired four rounds of bullets in the private residence of the petitioner No. 2. Thereafter, the pistol No. 1 again came to the residence of petitioner No. 2 and abused him with slang word and damaged a parked car. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, Naharlagun Police Station Case No. 73/2017 was registered under Section 448/506/427 IPC, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Consequent upon investigation of the case, charge-sheet was filed on 13.10.2017 before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, under Section 448/506/427 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section 185 of the MV Act. In pursuance of the investigation of the charge sheet so filed, charges were farmed against the petitioner No. 1 on 25.05.2018 under Section 427/506 IPC read with Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. It is stated that the case is now in the stage of taking evidence and till date, no evidence has been recorded by the learned Court below. Mr. Lampu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that the accused and complainant are close relatives and the petitioner No. 1 who is the accused, is the nephew of the complainant i.e. petitioner No. 2. Mr. Lampu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that the accused and complainant are close relatives and the petitioner No. 1 who is the accused, is the nephew of the complainant i.e. petitioner No. 2. He further submits that soon after the complaint was lodged on 29.05.2017, the petitioner No. 2 i.e. the complainant, went to the Officer-in-Charge of the Naharlagun Police Station, praying for withdrawal of the said complaint by saying that they have now mutually settled their differences. However, as the case had already been registered under non-compoundable sections, the Officer-in-Charge of the Naharlagun Police Station informed the petitioner No. 2 ab put the in ability-under the law to permit withdrawal of the case. Thereafter, by a deed of settlement agreement, dated 16.06.2017, entered between the complainant and the accused, which is annexed as Annexure-6 to this petition, Mr. Lampu, points-out that the petitioners being close relatives, have now amicably settled their disputes which arose because of a misunderstanding and thus, the petitioner No. 2 unconditionally agreed to withdraw the complaint lodge by him against the petitioner No. 1. It is further submitted that in the light of the mutual settlement agreement made above, the petitioners have decided to live peacefully together and in that context, it is very unlikely that the complainant will depose anything against the accused petitioner No. 1 before the learned Court below. In the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Apex Court while recognizing the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of a criminal proceeding of the offences which are not included in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of a criminal proceeding of the offences which are not included in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, held that one of the consideration, amongst others, to be taken into account by the Court while quashing a criminal proceeding is the possibility of the accused being convicted should the criminal proceeding be continued. In the instant case, the petitioners who are the complainant and the accused, being close relatives and having also stated to have resolved their differences and misunderstandings vide agreement, dated 16.06.2017, it is found that the complainant/petitioner No. 2 is unlikely to give any evidence in connection with the offences alleged against the accused petitioner No. 1 as a result of which, the possibility of the accused being convicted in the proceeding pending before the learned Court below, appears to be bleak and remote and in that view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner No. 1, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, in G.R. Case No. 380/2017 arising out of Naharlagun Police Station Case No. 73/2017. It is ordered accordingly. With the above direction, the instant criminal petition stands disposed of.