Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 324 (GAU)

Jelly Pagia Dolo v. State Of AP

2022-03-29

ROBIN PHUKAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : Petitioner No. 1, Shri Jelly Pagia Dolo; petitioner No. 2, Shri Jackie Rimo, both are accused; and petitioner No. 3, Shri Ngurang Taka, who is the informant of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 225/2018, under Sections 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively have approached this Court, jointly, by filing the present petition for quashing the F.I.R. of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 225/2018, under Sections 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code, by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:- “On 06.08.2018, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, at about 10.30 a.m., entered into the shop of Shri Ngurang Taka, situated at Ganga Market, in the name and style M/S Maa Kali Traders and demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) only and threatened to face dire consequences to the staffs. Also the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have forcefully taken away some articles from M/S Ganesh Pan Bhandar at Akashdeep Market, Itanagar. On receipt of one F.I.R. to that effect from petitioner No. 3, Shri Ngurang Taka, the Officer-In-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, registered Itanagar P.S. Case No. 225/2018, under Section 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigated the same, which culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, under Section 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code. While the case was pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have entered into a settlement agreement and resolved the dispute amongst themselves and on the basis of the said settlement deed, they approached this Court by filing the present petition.” 3. Heard Mr. T. J. Dogum, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 4. Mr. T. J. Dogum, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties and they have also entered into a settlement deed and on the basis of which, they approached this Court for quashing the F.I.R. and Charge-Sheet, as the offence under Sections 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable offence. It is, therefore, contended to allow the petition. 5. Mr. It is, therefore, contended to allow the petition. 5. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, submits that as the matter has been resolved between the parties and as the offences are not serous in nature involving mental depravity, the State has not objection in the event of allowing the petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. 7. It appears that the parties have approached this Court on the basis of the settlement deed, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-VI. Perusal of the same reveals that the parties have amicably resolved, agreed and settled their disputes outside the Court and they have agreed to live in peace and harmony and the petitioner No. 3 agreed to withdraw the complaint, being lodged by him before the Itanagar Police Station, and the parties have decided not to proceed with the matter before any Court and without any influence or threat or coercion or fraud, they have signed the settlement deed with full consent and knowledge. It also appears that the case was registered on the basis of one F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner No. 3. And of course, in the F.I.R. it has also been mentioned that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have also took away some of the articles from the shop M/S Ganesh Pan Bhandar of Akashdeep Market, Itanagar. But being the President of Itanagar Market Welfare Association (IMWA), Shri Yumlam Achung, also signed the deed as witness and he represents the business community of the said market. And as such, not arraying of the owner of Ganesh Pan Bhandar would cause no prejudice to either party. 8. It is worth noting that While dealing with the issue of quashing the F.I.R. on the basis of settlement deed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. the State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , and subsequently, in the case of Narendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 8. It is worth noting that While dealing with the issue of quashing the F.I.R. on the basis of settlement deed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. the State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , and subsequently, in the case of Narendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 06 SCC 466, has been held as under: “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: (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.” 9. Here in this case, it appears from the record, more particularly, from the Settlement Deed, Annexure-VI, that the parties have resolved their disputes between themselves amicably and they are not willing to pursue the case. Since the matter has been settled amicably, the witnesses are unlikely to depose against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and in that case, further proceeding of the case would be in exercise in futility and sheer abuse of the process of the Court. Besides, it would put the petitioners in undue hardship and grave injustice would be cause to them and in the event of refusing to quash the proceeding, the ends of justice would never be served. 10. In the case of Gian Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape and dacoity etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. Similarly, any compromise between victim and the offender in relation to the offences under the special statutes, like the Prevention of the Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servant while working in that capacity etc. cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceeding involving such offences. 11. The case in hand does not fall in any of the category mentioned hereinabove. Moreover, the petitioner Nos. cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceeding involving such offences. 11. The case in hand does not fall in any of the category mentioned hereinabove. Moreover, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, who are accused of the aforesaid offences, have also no antecedent of any such activities in past. Moreover, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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. 12. In the case in hand also, the parties resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves. 13. In view of above and also in view of the submissions made at the Bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that end of justice would be served if the petition is allowed. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. Consequently, the Itanagar P.S. Case No. 225/2018, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 549/2018, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, stands quashed. 14. The parties have to bear their own cost.