Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 49 (GAU)

Smti Ngurang Yagiam v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2020-01-17

NANI TAGIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Nani Tagia, J. - Heard Ms. Deepa Yoka, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Hage Laxmi, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioners, 2 in number, for quashing and setting aside the Kimin Police Station Case No. 03/2009 and ChargeSheet No. 02/2009 under Sections 450/436 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Sessions Case No.39/2018 pending in the Court of Sessions at Yupia, on the ground that the complainant and the accused person have settled their differences by a deed of settlement, dated 23.01.2019. 3. The criminal case against the accused, who is the petitioner No. 2, herein, came to be registered on the basis of an First Information Report(FIR), lodged by the petitioner No. 1, on 17.02.2009, against the accused petitioner No. 2 alleging that on 17.02.2009, the petitioner No. 2 entered her residence along with petrol with motive of burning down her house. The accused petitioner No. 2 poured the petrol in the entire house and burntdown the following items: sets of sofa, cushions, carpets, and many more household articles. 4. In pursuance thereof, the Kimin Police Station Case No. 03/2009 u/ss. 450/436 IPC was registered. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid on 22.03.2009 vide Charge-Sheet No. 02/2009 u/ss. 450/436 IPC. 5. During the course of investigation, it was found that the accused/ petitioner No. 2 had tried to burn the house of the petitioner No. 1. 6. The prosecution stands to support their case by as many as 10 witnesses whose statements have been recorded along with the seized articles. 7. In the case of Narinder Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that on a mutual settlement between the parties with regard to the offence which are of noncompoundable in nature, only those offences should be quashed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the High Court which offences are predominantly of civil in character having arisen out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes. 8. The offence charged against the accused/petitioner No. 2 is the offence of house trespass and mischief by fire. 8. The offence charged against the accused/petitioner No. 2 is the offence of house trespass and mischief by fire. The offence of house trespass as well as mischief by fire, cannot by any stretch of interpretation, be held to be an offence relatable to civil in character having arisen out of a commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes. 9. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the offence u/ss. 450/436 IPC cannot be allowed to be compounded by the parties in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 10. In view of the above, this criminal petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed being devoid of merit. 11. Interim order, dated 05.08.2019, suspending the trial of Sessions Case No. 39/2018 and the subsequent extensions thereof, if any, stands vacated.