Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 153 (GAU)

Techi Boy v. State of AP

2025-01-28

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

body2025
JUDGMENT : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nabam Kanu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This Criminal Petition has been filed jointly under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners, namely Shri Techi Boy, Shri Nguri Taha and Shri Ishwar Rai, praying for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 20.10.1998 on the basis of which Itanagar P.S. Case no. 118/1998, was registered under Sections 452/324/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), corresponding to G. R. No. 206/1998. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are that the petitioner No. 2 had lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer- in-Charge of Itanagar Police Station on 20.10.1998 against the petitioner No. 1 and his associates inter alia alleging that the petitioner No. 1, Shri Techi Boy and some other group of miscreants trespassed in to the resident of petitioner No. 2 and assaulted the brother-in-law of the petitioner No. 2, namely, Shri Ishwar Rai, who is the petitioner No. 3 in this case. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid F.I.R., Itanagar P.S. Case No. 118/1998 was registered and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner No. 1 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia and after consideration of the materials, the said Court framed charges in G. R. Case No. 206/1998, under Sections 452/324 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner No. 1. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the incident occurred between the petitioner No. 1 and other petitioners, due to lack of understanding between them, however, the matter has been amicably settled between them and in that regard, a Deed of Agreement was also executed on 23.08.2022. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as the matter has been amicably settled and pendency of the criminal case would be a futile exercise and wastage of precious judicial time, the pending criminal proceeding may be quashed for the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of the Apex court in the case of “ State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan ”, reported in “ (2019) 5 SCC 688” , in support of his submissions. 7. On the other hand, Ms. The learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of the Apex court in the case of “ State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan ”, reported in “ (2019) 5 SCC 688” , in support of his submissions. 7. On the other hand, Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the original F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1998 and thus, it is a very old pending matter, however, she fairly submits that as the matter has been amicably settled amongst the victim, informant as well as accused, there is unlikelihood of the case resulting in a conviction. Hence, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 9. Bare perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that the matter involved in this criminal petition pertains to an incident which had occurred more than 26 (twenty-six) years ago and the matter is still pending judicial decision before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 10. The Apex Court has observed in the case of the “ State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan” (Supra) that while exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice, and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal proceeding. 11. In the instant case, the incident occurred more than 26 (twenty-six) years ago and the victim as well as the informant, have, in the meanwhile, compromised the matter with the accused and have reached an amicable settlement. Continuation of such an old pending matter in spite of there being an amicable settlement between the parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, amounts to oppression and unjust to the accused. Moreover, in view of the settlement reached between the parties, the possibility of conviction in the pending trial is very bleak and remote. 12. In view of above, this Court is of considered opinion that this is a fit case, where the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may be invoked. 13. Moreover, in view of the settlement reached between the parties, the possibility of conviction in the pending trial is very bleak and remote. 12. In view of above, this Court is of considered opinion that this is a fit case, where the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may be invoked. 13. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding, arising out of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 118/1998, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 206/19998, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, is hereby quashed and this criminal petition is accordingly allowed. 14. The criminal petition stands disposed of. 15. Send back the Trial Court Record (TCR).