Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 406 (GAU)

Debo Kanta Gogoi v. State Of Assam

2020-03-18

MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. G. Bokalial, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B. J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1 and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the CrPC, for short) has been preferred seeking quashing of the charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 100/2010 dated 29.10.2010, submitted in connection with Lahowal Police Station Case No. 97/2009, and the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 1471/2009, arising therefrom and presently pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dibrugarh. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this petition may be exposited as follows : on 01.08.2009, the respondent no. 2 as the complainant had filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh which stood forwarded to the Officer In-Charge, Lahowal Police Station by an order dated 04.08.2009 to register a case. On receipt of the said complaint, the Officer In-Charge, Lahowal Police Station treating the complaint as the First Information Report (FIR), registered the same as Lahowal Police Station Case No. 97/2009, under Sections 406/420, Indian Penal Code (IPC). 4. Accordingly, the investigation was caused into the allegations made in the FIR and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 100/2010 dated 29.10.2010, was submitted finding a prima facie case against 5 (five) nos. of accused including the present 4 (four) petitioners, for commission of offences under Sections 406/420, IPC. The allegations in the FIR were, inter-alia, to the effect that the respondent no. 2 at the relevant time was doing business as a supplier of green tea leaves. The accused persons, 5 in nos., including the present 4 (four) petitioners, came in contact with the respondent no. 2 by introducing themselves as small tea growers and suppliers of green tea leaves and thereby, developed a relationship with the complainant. The respondent no. 2 in December, 2007 had paid an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- as advance to the petitioners for supply of green tea leaves to him. When the petitioners did not supply the green tea leaves till the year 2008, the respondent no. 2 alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust, had lodged the afore- mentioned complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dibrugarh. 5. It is submitted by Mr. 1,80,000/- as advance to the petitioners for supply of green tea leaves to him. When the petitioners did not supply the green tea leaves till the year 2008, the respondent no. 2 alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust, had lodged the afore- mentioned complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dibrugarh. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Bokalial that presently, the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 1471/2009 is pending at the stage of appearance due to non-appearance of Ms. Juli Phukan Gogoi, the 5 th accused in the case. As a result, the proceeding has not proceeded beyond the stage of appearance. 6. In the meantime, on approach being made on behalf of the present petitioners with the respondent no. 2 the dispute regarding the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- extended by the respondent no. 2 to them, has been amicably resolved between the parties. In view of the such amicable settlement, the present petitioners have approached this Court with the prayers, indicated above. On issuance of notice, the complainant who has been arrayed as respondent no. 2 in this petition, has appeared and has submitted an affidavit, wherein, it is averred that due to misunderstanding and communication gap, the respondent no. 2 had filed the complaint in connection with Lahowal Police Station Case No. 97/2009 against the 5 (five) nos. of accused persons including the present 4 (four) petitioners. The present petitioners and the respondent no. 2 have sorted out the private dispute and have since been maintaining a cordial relationship. From the above, it has emerged that the parties have decided to bury the differences and disputes between them which had arisen between them regarding an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- which resulted into the registration of Lahowal Police Station Case No. 97/2009. 7. The scope of the inherent power of this Court available under Section 482, CrPC has been discussed elaborately in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court of India as well as of this Court. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court has observed and held as under :- '61. The scope of the inherent power of this Court available under Section 482, CrPC has been discussed elaborately in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court of India as well as of this Court. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court has observed and held as under :- '61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the 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 victims 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 Act 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. 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.' 8. After considering the decision in Gian Singh (supra), the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has observed in the similar manner and the relevant parts of the said judgment are extracted hereunder :- '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. 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. 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. 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. 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons 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 latter 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, timings 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. Recently, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the Supreme Court has further observed as under :- '15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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; 15.3. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc. 16. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the fire arm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused.' 10. In view of the aforesaid fact situation obtaining in the present case, as alluded in the proceeding paragraphs, and in the light of the guidelines that can be culled out from decisions of the Supreme Court as regards the power under 482, CrPC, this Court is of the considered view that this is a case where the inherent power of the Court available under Section 482, can be exercised for the ends of justice. The parties herein have settled their dispute amicably by reaching an understanding. The parties have decided to proceed with their lives by putting their dispute that arose between them, into the backburner. The parties herein have settled their dispute amicably by reaching an understanding. The parties have decided to proceed with their lives by putting their dispute that arose between them, into the backburner. Instead of allowing the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 1471/2009, arising out of Charge Sheet No. 100/2010 and Lahowal Police Station Case No. 97/2009, and presently pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dibrugarh, to continue any further where the inevitable conclusion in the backdrop of above fact situation will be the acquittal of the accused-persons including the present petitioners, at the end of the trial, the interest of justice will be best subserved if the said Charge Sheet No. 100/2010, arising out of Lahowal Station Case No. 97/2009, and the entire proceeding of G.R. Case No. 1471/2010 pending against the accused persons including the present petitioners are quashed and set aside in order to enable the accused persons including the present petitioners, and the respondent no. 2 to give a quietus to the dispute that arose between them. Accordingly, the Charge Sheet No. 100/2010 dated 29.10.2010, arising out of Lahowal Police Station Case No. 97/2009, and the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 1471/2009, arising therefrom and presently pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dibrugarh, are quashed and set aside. With the observations made and directions given above, this petition stands disposed of. No Cost.