Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 231 (GAU)

Ojing Darin v. State of AP

2025-02-12

KARDAK ETE

body2025
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. T. Gameh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T.Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(now repealed), corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, jointly filed by the petitioners, praying for quashment of criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No.81/2022, arising out of Pasighat P.S. Case No.47/2022, under Sections 279/304(A) of the IPC, 1860, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, on the basis of settlement arrived at between the petitioners. 3. The case set-up by the prosecution is that on 22.04.2022 at 2045 hours, a written complaint was received from one Shri Ojing Darin (petitioner No.1 herein) to the effect that a scooter bearing registration No.AR-01K-8027 had hit his labour near Siku Bridge on 22.04.2022 at around 1810 hours, as a result of which, the said labour, namely, Shri Lokino Medi succumbed to his injuries on the spot. 4. On receipt of the above written FIR, a case was registered being Pasighat P.S. Case No.47/2022, under Sections 279/304(A) of the IPC, 1860. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioner No.3 on 26.11.2022 by the Police. 6. Mr. T. Gameh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement vide Deed of Settlement dated 24.04.2022 and followed by another Deed of Settlement dated 06.01.2025. He further submits that the petitioner No.3 has compensated the mother of the victim/deceased by paying an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One lakh fifty thousand) on 22.12.2023. In view of the above, the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be futile as there would be no likelihood of conviction, as such, the criminal proceedings may be quashed. 7. Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor fairly submits that since the parties have settled the matter and compensation has also been paid to the mother of the victim, this Court may pass appropriate order in the interest of justice. He also submits that a similar nature of case has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 8. On consideration of the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner No.3 has hit the victim with his scooter on 22.04.2022, as a result of which, the victim, namely, Lokino Medi succumbed to his injuries. He also submits that a similar nature of case has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 8. On consideration of the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner No.3 has hit the victim with his scooter on 22.04.2022, as a result of which, the victim, namely, Lokino Medi succumbed to his injuries. Upon completion of the investigation, the Police has charge-sheeted the petitioner No.3 which is pending trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. 9. During the pendency, the parties have settled the matter by entering into settlement vide settlement deed on 22.04.2022 and on 06.01.2025. Record reveals that the petitioner No.3 has compensated the mother of the victim/deceased by paying an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand). 10. Having considered the nature of offence alleged and considering that the parties have settled the matter as well as compensation has also been paid to the mother of the victim/deceased although monetary compensation would not suffice, I am of the view that interest of justice would be served if the present petition is allowed by quashing the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No.81/2022, under Sections 279/304(A) of the IPC, 1860. 11. The law on quashment of criminal proceedings has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions including the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, which is reproduced herein below: “15. 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: 15.1. 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; 15.2. 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; 15.3. 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; 15.3. 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; 15.4. 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; 15.5. 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; 15.5. 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. 12. In the present case, as noted above, since the parties have settled the matter and compensated the mother of the victim/deceased although monetary compensation would not suffice, and also considering the nature of offence alleged as well as the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise as the chances of conviction are bleak and remote which would amount to abuse of process of the law. Thus, I am inclined to quash the instant criminal proceedings. 13. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No.81/2022, arising out of Pasighat P.S. Case No.47/2022, under Sections 279/304(A) of the IPC, 1860, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, is hereby quashed. 14. The criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of.