Imran Ali v. The State of Assam and Anr

ORDER

12.10.2023 Heard Mr. K. Mira, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam representing the State respondent.

¶2This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for setting aside and quashing the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 12865/2015 arising out of Satgaon P.S. Case No. 238/2015 registered under Section 120(B)/498(A)/497 of IPC pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M).

¶3This present petition is filed in a background that the respondent No. 2 who lodged the FIR against the petitioner, had settled the matter amicably between them and therefore, this court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should quash the criminal prosecution as the offences charges are not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

¶4The facts of the case is that on 25.11.2015, the respondent No. 2, lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge, Satgaon Police Station inter alia alleging that since 2012, she had been in love with the petitioner and they both got married as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954 on 10.10.2013. The respondent No. 2 alleged that after marriage, the petitioner had taken Rs. 1,15,000/- as dowry from her from brother for purchase of four Page No.# 3/6 wheeler and also demanded money for construction of house. It is also alleged in the FIR that the petitioner and his parents had also demanded Rs. 3 lakhs for arranging social marriage and on refusal started avoiding the respondent No. 2 and threatened that if the said amount was not paid they would cancel the marriage. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR against the petitioner.

¶5On receipt of the said FIR, a case was registered against the petitioner as Satgaon P.S. Case No. 238/2015 registered under Section 120(B)/498(A)/497 of IPC.

¶6After investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted the charge sheet vide Charge Sheet No. 11/2016 dated 29.02.2016 under Section 120(B)/498(A)/420 of IPC before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) and vide order dated 07.04.2018 took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Sections 120(B)/498(A)/420 of IPC and the case was transferred to the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), for disposal.

¶7Subsequently, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 had decided to dissolve their marriage through mutual consent. Accordingly the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 had jointly filed a petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for dissolution of their marriage before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court II, Kamrup (M) which was registered as F.C. (C) No. 284/2016 and after perusal of the materials, the learned Court below had allowed the said petition and dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 on mutual consent vide order dated 24.10.2017. Page No.# 4/6

¶8Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for setting aside and quashing the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 12865/2015 arising out of Satgaon P.S. Case No. 238/2015 registered under Section 120(B)/498(A)/497 of IPC pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) as they had already settled their dispute by dissolving their marriage on mutual consent. The respondent No. 2 had duly represented by the learned counsel and the learned counsel has submitted that both the parties have mutually and amicably settled their matter and decided to close all the proceeding pending between them. It is also stated by the learned counsel that after dissolution of their marriages both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have got remarried and are living happily in their marital life.

¶9In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is now to decide whether this is a fit case where this Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 12865/2015 arising out of Satgaon P.S. Case No. 238/2015 registered under Section 120(B)/498(A)/497 of IPC pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M).

¶10It is by now settled that a High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can very well quash a criminal proceeding or a criminal complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but while doing so, the Court is to follow certain principles as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh –Vs-State of Punjab and Another reported in 2012 10 SCC 303, and in State of Madhya Pradesh –Vs-Laxmi Narayan and Others reported in 2019 5 SCC 688.

¶11In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Laxmi Narayan, reported Page No.# 5/6 in AIR 2019 SC 1296, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is submitted that instant case falls within the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶12For ready reference, paragraph-13 of State of Madhya Pradesh & Laxmi Narayan (Supra) is extracted herein below: "13. 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:

i) 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;

ii) ii) 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;

iii) iii) 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;

iv) iv) 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;

v) 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 Page No.# 6/6 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." .

¶13From the materials available on record including the amicable settlement between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, this Court is of the view that the matter relates to disputes which are private in nature and does not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that after dissolution of their marriages both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have got remarried and are living happily in their marital life. There is no claim against each other. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised as held in Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

¶14Accordingly, this petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 12865/2015 arising out of Satgaon P.S. Case No. 238/2015 registered under Section 120(B)/498(A)/497 of IPC pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M).

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010012572023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./56/2023 IMRAN ALI S/O- MD. ABDUL ALI, R/O-DOPDAR, P.O- DOPDHAR CHARIALI, P.S- HALUATING, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:NARJIN BEGUM D/O- MAZIBUR RAHMAN R/O- BAGHARBARI MILIJULI PATH SATGAON GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K MIRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY