Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 262 (MEG)

Riewsaidlang Kurbah v. State of Meghalaya

2022-09-29

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is an accused in connection with GR Case No. 71(A) of 2021 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Shillong. 2. The genesis of the case emanates from an FIR dated 14.05.2021 lodged by Smti. Darihun Dohtdong, the respondent No. 3 herein to the effect that the Officer In-Charge, Mawlai Police Station was informed that while her daughter, the respondent No. 4 was having bath, she noticed a mobile phone on the side of the bathroom and took it and showed the same to the respondent No. 3 where it was ascertained that the said mobile phone belonged to the petitioner herein, the allegation being that the petitioner would capture the activities of the respondent No. 4 on his mobile phone. Hence the complaint. 3. The police on receipt of the said FIR had registered Mawlai P.S. Case No. 27(5) 2021 under Section 448/354 C IPC read with Section 66 E of the IT Act and investigation was launched. The petitioner was arrested by the police on 15.05.2021 and was released on bail on 03.06.2021. 4. The Investigating Officer (I/O) then filed the charge sheet on 25.06.2021 and with the finding that a prima facie case under Section 448/354 C IPC read with Section 66 E of the IT Act was found well established against the accused for which he was sent up before the court to be tried. The case is at the stage of consideration of charges against the accused/petitioner. 5. In the meantime, the complainant as well as the alleged victim and petitioner being next door neighbours have restored their cordial relationship and since no apparent damage was caused by the action of the petitioner, the I/O having noted that the contents of the alleged video recording being confined only to the knowledge of the complainant, the alleged victim and the petitioner, the same was not send for forensic analysis. In order to maintain this relationship, the parties have come to an amicable settlement and have accordingly executed a deed of settlement on 16.08.2022. 6. In order to maintain this relationship, the parties have come to an amicable settlement and have accordingly executed a deed of settlement on 16.08.2022. 6. Contents of the settlement arrived at between the parties which was annexed with this petition as Annexure-III would show that the parties involved in course of time have normalized their neighbourly relationship and considering that no harm was done to the complainant or her daughter by the said act of the petitioner and on his assurance not to repeat the act, have decided that they are no longer interested to pursue the criminal proceedings and that they have voluntarily decided to withdraw the FIR. 7. Ms. S. A. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the provision of Section 448 IPC and Section 66 E of the IT Act being compoundable, the trial court would have been the proper forum for the parties to approach in this regard. However, since Section 354 C is involved, which section is non-compoundable, therefore the only remedy available to the parties is to approach this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C craving leave for exercise of its inherent power to quash the said FIR and the resultant proceedings in GR Case No. 71 (A) of 2021. 8. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. PP has also submitted that the nature and gravity of the offence is not heinous, the parties having arrived at a compromise and are willing to settle the matter amongst themselves amicably, this Court exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC may pass necessary orders. 9. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 29, 29.1 and 29.5 of the same has held as follows: '29. 9. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 29, 29.1 and 29.5 of the same has held as follows: '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. 29.5 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.' 10. The above proposition, in the opinion of this Court would be applicable to the case of the parties herein. In view of the fact that the complainant has indicated her reluctance to pursue the matter, it would be a futile exercise for the prosecution to carry on with the proceedings with the likelihood of the accused/petitioner being let off either on grounds of insufficient evidence or being given the benefit of doubt. Be that as it may, under the facts and circumstances of the case, for ends of justice this Court would not be found wanting while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482. 11. Accordingly, this petition succeeds, the same is allowed. 12. The FIR dated 14.05.2021 and the proceedings of GR Case No. 71(A) of 2021 before the court of the learned JMFC, Shillong is hereby set aside and quashed. 13. The bail bonds executed by the accused/petitioner hereby stands discharged.