Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 80 (MEG)

Shalmanroy Shangdiar v. State of Meghalaya

2022-04-08

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that the events leading to the filing of this instant petition before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C germinated from an FIR dated 06.07.2017 lodged by the respondent No. 3 as the complainant and which FIR was registered as Mawkyrwat P.S Case No. 16(7) of 2017 under Section 468/420/506/34 IPC impleading the petitioners herein as the accused therein. On investigation being completed, the Investigating Officer (I/O) filed the charge sheet No. 16/2020 dated 20.07.2017 and accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South West Khasi Hills, Mawkyrwat took cognizance of the case and GR Case No. 8/2021 was duly registered. 2. The background circumstances leading to the lodgment of the said FIR, according to the petitioners, is that the sister of the complainant/respondent No. 3 who was an officiating teacher in the Mawbidong Presbyterian Upper Primary School was allegedly dismissed from service on the strength of a complaint made against her, which complaint was allegedly signed by some students of the said school and church members. The FIR was filed basically on the ground that the petitioners have forged the signature of five students (signatories). 3. It is also submitted that the stage of the said GR case is for recording the evidence of witnesses of which some witnesses have been examined by the court. At this stage, the parties realized that the FIR was lodged because of some misunderstanding and out of emotion and on the intervention of the elders of the church and other well wishers and family members, the complainant/respondent No. 3 along with the sister met the petitioners and have agreed to settle the matter amicably. Accordingly, a compromise deed was executed between the parties in the presence of witnesses on 07.12.2021. The terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties was then reduced in writing in the form of a 'Compromise Deed' dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure III). 4. Mr. Yobin, has further submitted that in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their differences, the continuation of the proceedings in question would be futile and as such, this petition may be allowed and the proceedings in GR Case No. 20/2020 be set aside and quashed. 5. Mr. 4. Mr. Yobin, has further submitted that in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their differences, the continuation of the proceedings in question would be futile and as such, this petition may be allowed and the proceedings in GR Case No. 20/2020 be set aside and quashed. 5. Mr. Yobin, has also submitted that the dispute between the parties herein is basically between relatives who are known to each other and who are residents of the same village as well as members of the same church, the same being private in nature would not have a serious impact on society. Again, since the parties have resolved their entire dispute, this Court exercising its inherent power can quash the proceeding aforementioned for ends of justice. 6. In this regard, paragraph 61 of the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303 was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners to support his contention. 7. Per contra, Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA for the State respondents No. 1 & 2 has submitted that the stage of the proceedings has to be considered vis-a-vis the Compromise Deed executed by the parties. In this regard, mention is made to the stage of the proceedings before the Trial Court which is now at the stage of evidence and as such, the timing of settlement between the parties would play a crucial role as far as the exercise of inherent power of this Court is concerned. 8. Mr. Gurung has further submitted that this Court before deciding to exercise its power under section 482 Cr.P.C, would be mindful of the stage of the impugned proceedings, inasmuch as, if the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of the offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in its approach in accepting the settlement made and to quash the proceedings in question. In the same manner, if the settlement has come at the stage where charge or charges are framed, but evidence is yet to start, or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court would also react favorably to the prayer made for quashing of the proceedings. In the same manner, if the settlement has come at the stage where charge or charges are framed, but evidence is yet to start, or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court would also react favorably to the prayer made for quashing of the proceedings. However, if the matter is almost at the conclusion of evidence and at the stage of argument, the High Court would refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C since at that stage, the Trial Court would be in a better position to decide the case of merit. In the case in hand, Mr. Gurung has stated that the case is at the evidence stage, with a number of witnesses already examined. From the depositions of the witnesses already examined, it is seen that the complainant as PW. 1 was willing to compromise the matter out of fear for his life as he has been threatened with dire consequences. PW 2 who is the victim, whose services was terminated by the school had deposed in her evidence that she is not willing to compromise and that she wants justice. 9. In the light of the above, Mr. Gurung has submitted that this is a fit case for this Court to refrain from exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Mr. I. Kharkongor, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the Compromise Deed was executed between the parties voluntarily and this respondent attests to the authenticity of the same and has also agreed that for the sake of peace and friendly relationship between the parties who are relatives, there is no opposition to this petition by the respondent No. 3. 11. Mr. Yobin, in reply to the assertion of the learned GA that since the proceedings in question have reached the stage of recording of evidence of the witnesses, therefore this Court may not take into account the compromise reached between the parties, has reiterated that the offence involved are non-heinous offences and are predominantly of a private nature and as such, even if the trial has reached the stage of recording of evidence of prosecution's witnesses or even if the trial is concluded, criminal proceedings in such cases can be annulled. Reference to this is made citing the case of Ram Gopal & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh: 2021 SCC Online SC 834, paragraph 13. Reference to this is made citing the case of Ram Gopal & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh: 2021 SCC Online SC 834, paragraph 13. 12. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, what is apparent is that a criminal case was put in motion on the basis of the said FIR dated 06.07.2017. In the ensuing proceedings, the matter has reached the stage of recording of evidence. It is at this point of time that the parties have come to an understanding and has resulted to settle the dispute amongst them amicably. The result is the execution of the Compromise Deed dated 07.12.2021. Accordingly, the parties have now approached this Court for exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the said proceedings. 13. The State respondents No 1 & 2 has objected to this petition on the ground that the matter has travelled to the stage of recording of evidence and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the proceedings, but to allow the matter to be finally decided on merit. The next limb of contention is that from the deposition of PW. 1 who is the complainant/respondent No.3, it appears that he has been coerce to enter to the said compromise with threat of dire consequences. Similarly, PW. 2 who is the sister of PW. 1 and who is also the teacher who was allegedly dismissed from service on the allegation of the petitioners and others, in her deposition has submitted that she wants justice. This according to Mr. Gurung is a clear case that the compromise was reached not in its true spirit and as such, this petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 14. On the first limb of argument raised by the State respondent, the fact that the matter has reached the stage of recording of evidence, therefore a compromise arrived at, at this stage may not be allowed, this Court is convinced by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even at the stage when the trial is concluded and compromise arrived at between the parties at that point of time, the criminal proceedings can still be annulled. Reliance on the case of Ram Gopal (supra) particularly at paragraph 13 (reproduced below) is relevant in the present circumstances. '13. Reliance on the case of Ram Gopal (supra) particularly at paragraph 13 (reproduced below) is relevant in the present circumstances. '13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).' 15. As to the reference of the learned GA to the contents of the deposition of PW 1 (respondent No. 3) and PW 2, the fact that PW 1 is before this Court and has categorically submitted that he has no grievance against the said Compromise Deed and for the sake of peace between the parties, has willingly executed the same, this Court taking cognizance of the situation at this point of time, has no hesitation but to accept the fact that the said Compromise Deed was executed between the parties voluntarily. 16. 16. As to the power of this Court to accept the said Compromise Deed and to quash the criminal proceeding in question as was held in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr: (2014) 6 SCC 466 , at paragraph 29, 29.1, 29.2, 29.3 and 29.4 being relevant to the case in hand, the same are reproduced below as: - '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. 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. 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.' 17. In view of the above, this petition is hereby allowed. The proceedings of GR Case No. 8/2021 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South West Khasi Hills, Mawkyrwat is hereby quashed. 18. Petition disposed of. No cost.