Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 338 (GAU)

Nabam Yapi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2020-03-04

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, for the State respondent. 2. By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the proceeding in G. R. Case No. 603/16, under Sections 498(A)/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, corresponding to Women P.S. Case No. 78/2016, arising out of the F.I.R. dated 28.08.2016. 3. The brief facts of the case can be narrated in the following manner. 4. The petitioners in this case are husband and wife. The petitioner No. 1/wife filed an F.I.R. against her husband/petitioner No. 2 alleging that he had beaten her with a bamboo stick. The wife claimed to have received serious injuries. The wife further alleged in the F.I.R. that her husband was allegedly having an elicit relationship with a divorced woman and also made her pregnant. This is the issue for which the wife and the husband often had quarrel with each other and during those quarrels, on every occasions, the husband beat his wife and sometimes pressed his neck also. The informant wife further stated in the F.I.R. that her husband had given a loan of Rs. 50,000/- to another person after taking the money from her and when she demanded the money back from her husband, he became angry and misbehaved with her. According to the wife, on one occasion, while she was driving a scooty, her husband driving a car tried to kill her by hitting her scooty from behind. 5. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the wife, the Police registered the case under Section 498(A)/323/354/341/509/506 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Mr. Sonar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that both the husband and wife have sorted out their disputes and presently they are living peacefully and for that matter only, the criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed. 7. Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. 6. Mr. Sonar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that both the husband and wife have sorted out their disputes and presently they are living peacefully and for that matter only, the criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed. 7. Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the parties have reached settlement and when the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and in that case, continuation of the criminal case would be a futile exercise. 8. In paragraph 29.2 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held as under - wxyz "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 secure: zyxw wxyz (i) Ends of justice, or zyxw wxyz (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." zyxw 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 . 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the matter. This is a case between husband and wife. Admittedly, they have minor children and they jointly stated that that now they have been living peacefully together. The Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 677 , held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise. 11. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 has held: wxyz " We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." zyxw 12. Under the said reasons, I am of the opinion that a case for interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is clearly made out. I find that there is no possibility of conviction of the husband in future. Accordingly, the proceeding in G. R. Case No. 603/16, under Sections 498(A)/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, corresponding to Women P.S. Case No. 78/2016, arising out of the F.I.R. dated 28.08.2016, stands quashed. 13. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.