Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 72 (GAU)

Abul Hussain Laskar v. State Of Assam

2020-01-23

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2020
JUDGMENT Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. - Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N. Kalita, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State and also Mr. JUNM Laskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. Present petition has been preferred, under Section 482 Code of the Criminal Procedure, by the victim as well as accused persons for quashing the FIR pertaining to Lala PS Case No. 469/2015 (G.R. No. 1889/2018) registered under Sections 420/407/34 IPC lodged by the sister of the victim, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi. 3. So far as the case is concerned, the informant/respondent No.2 lodged an FIR on 21.09.2015 before the Officer-in-Charge, Lala police station to the effect that the accused persons, namely, 1) Abul Hussain Laskar , 2) Naharun Nessa Laskar/petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted the sister of the informant, who is the sister-in-law of the above two accused persons, in their house, in absence of her husband. It was alleged that the sister of the informant was kicked by holding her hair and they also tried to kill her by strangulating with her ''duppatta'' but she somehow rescued herself and fled away. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Lala PS Case No. 469/2015 was registered against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and finally submitted charge-sheet before the court, which is now pending for trial. 4. The aforesaid two accused persons, named in the FIR, as well as the victim come forward with the present petition to submit that in fact there was no such serious dispute between the parties but due to misunderstanding, the brother of the victim, has filed the present FIR. It is stated that immediately after the occurrence, the matter was amicably settled on 22.10.2015 and matter was also apprised to the Officer-in-Charge of Lala Police station for disposal of the case, on compromise, but yet charge-sheet was laid by the I.O. of the case without appreciating the matter of settlement between the parties. 5. Now, it has been contended by the present three petitioners that I.O. of the case never approached the petitioners for their arrest or interrogation and some sections has been added afterwards despite the compromise between the parties and they are not even interested to proceed with the case any more. 5. Now, it has been contended by the present three petitioners that I.O. of the case never approached the petitioners for their arrest or interrogation and some sections has been added afterwards despite the compromise between the parties and they are not even interested to proceed with the case any more. It is stated that the victim and the accusedpetitioners being in-laws has cordially continued their family life even after the incident. The victim, in this petition, has categorically stated that she did not sustain any such type of serious injury, on her person, as alleged in the FIR. Thus, all of them have sought for quashing of the FIR on the ground that continuance of further criminal proceeding will hamper their family relationship. 6. Today, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/informant has also entered appearance and submitted that FIR was filed by her brother due to misunderstanding and informant is no more interested to proceed with the case as the matter between the family members have already settled amicably. It is also submitted that victim sustained no such type of injury, on her person. 7. I have gone through the documents annexed including the copy of charge-sheet. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision in the case of Gyan Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 to submit that such a voluntary settlement between the parties can be allowed in terms of the decision rendered and also relied upon the decision in ( Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2014) 5 SCC 369 ) on the same ground. 9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has also referred to the decisions in (The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others,2019 0 Supreme (SC) 246) and ( State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar and another, (2019) 5 SCC 570 (Crl. Appeal No.336/2019) with Criminal Appeal No.337/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Tinku Sharma and others), to submit that offence under Section 307 IPC is a serious offence and court should be cautious in permitting such cases to be compounded because of nature of gravity of offence. Appeal No.336/2019) with Criminal Appeal No.337/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Tinku Sharma and others), to submit that offence under Section 307 IPC is a serious offence and court should be cautious in permitting such cases to be compounded because of nature of gravity of offence. It has been urged before the Court that court is not compelled to invoke the provision of Section 482 CrPC for such offence whereas the offence under Section 307 IPC which stated to be an offence against the society having impact in the society and the court should not mechanically quash the FIR only on the basis of compromise. 10. I have gone through the decisions referred to above and the submission made before this Court. Of course, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that power u/s 482 Code of the Criminal Procedure should not be invoked mechanically but it has also been observed in the aforesaid decision referred power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked for securing ends of justice, only in case where refusal to exercise the power may resulted in abuse of process of law. 11. Hon''ble Supreme Court in 2019 5 SCC 688 held as follows: wxyz 13. 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: zyxw wxyz i) 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; zyxw wxyz ii) 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; zyxw wxyz iii) 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; zyxw wxyz iv) 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; zyxw wxyz v) 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 impart 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. zyxw wxyz In view of the above as has been held that High Court would not raise it decision merely there is a mention of Section 307 IPC or the charges framed under the provisions, 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. zyxw 12. Turning to the present case, we will find that the informant has categorically mentioned in the FIR, victim was held by ''dupatta'' by accused persons, but she rescued herself immediately and ran away. Merely such mention of an incident would not amount to an offence under Section 307 IPC unless more serious impact is made upon the victim. Merely victim immediately fled away from the place of occurrence such an impact under Section 307 IPC cannot be rendered. On the other hand, victim herself is a petitioner in the present petition along with other petitioners, has asserted that she sustained no such injury on her person and there is no such medical report also. In such declaration made by the informant/victim herself, it can be assessable that the victim will no more support the case even the proceeding is allowed to proceed. The Section 307 IPC has been added by the I.O. mechanically, as no such serious injury was caused to the victim to attract the offence under Section 307 IPC by any weapon etc. On the other hand, the parties are relatives and they have now continued their cordial relationship by leaving all dispute, it would be interest of justice to restore the family peace and tranquility. In the given circumstances, it would be abuse of process of law if the proceeding is allowed to continue and no fruitful purpose would be served by such continuance of criminal proceeding where the parties involved have already buried their grievances. 13. Taking note of all above, this Court of the opinion that the petitioners have made out a case for interference of this Court by invoking the provisions of Section 482 Code of the Criminal Procedure. 14. In the result, petition is allowed and the impugned FIR as well as entire proceedings pertaining to the said FIR, is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. The petition stands disposed of.