Pinku Satnami and 2 Ors v. State of Assam and Anr

ORDER

25.04.2024. Heard Mr. H. P. Guwala, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent as well as Mr. A. Boro, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

¶2This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of FIR dated 02.01.2020 in connection with Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 10/2020 registered under Section 448/376/341/325/427/34 of IPC which was registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner No. 1.

¶3This present petition is filed in a background that they 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 charged are not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

¶4The facts of the case is that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 are cousin by relation. There were certain quarrel between both the petitioner No. 1 and the family of respondent No. 2 on 26.12.2019 in connection with certain land. Then, the respondent No. 2 inflicted injury upon the body of the petitioner No. 1 and accordingly, the petitioner No. 1, lodged Page No.# 3/6 an FIR before the Tinsukia P.S. against the respondent No. 2 which was registered as Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 14/2020 under Section 326 of IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 36/2020.

¶5That to save from the offence of grievous hurt inflicted by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner No. 1, the respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR dated

02.01.2020 before the Tinsukia P.S. which was registered as Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 10/2020 under Sections 448/376/341/325/427/34 of IPC inter alia alleging that on 26.12.2019 at about 08:00 PM, the petitioner No. 1 trespassed into the room of respondent No. 2 and by gagging the mouth committed rape on her.

¶6Thereafter, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 obtained bail in connection with aforesaid respective FIRS. It is stated that the FIR in Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 14/2020 under Section 326 of IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 36/ 2020 is ended in F/R and the case was closed vide order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia.

¶7Subsequently, on 30.01.2023, both the parties in consultation with their family members have agreed to settle the matter amicably and entered into an agreement for amicable settlement of the case as the respondent No. 2 realizes that due to misunderstanding and out of agony she lodged FIR against the petitioner No. 1 and being cousins and family member, the respondent No. 2 does not wish to proceed further with the Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 10/2020 under Sections 448/376/341/325/427/34 of IPC.

¶8In 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 Page No.# 4/6 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR dated 02.01.2020 in connection with Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 10/2020 registered under Section 448/376/341/325/427/34 of IPC.

¶9It 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, 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.

¶10In the case of Laxmi Narayan, (supra) 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.

¶11For ready reference, paragraph-13 of 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 Page No.# 5/6 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 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." .

¶12From the materials available on record including the deed of agreement executed between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2. It is seen that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are cousin and that they had some other family dispute. The respondent No. 2 had candidly admitted that the FIR was lodged out of agony. Considering the given facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose shall be served, if the prosecution is allowed to continue. This Court is also of the view that the matter relates to disputes which are private in nature and does not have a serious impact on society, in the given facts of the present case. Therefore, this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised as held in Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

¶13Accordingly, this petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing the FIR dated 02.01.2020 in connection with Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 10/2020 Page No.# 6/6 registered under Section 448/376/341/325/427/34 of IPC. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/6 GAHC010033702023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCrl.Pet./144/2023o PINKUoSATNAMIoANDo2oORS.o S/OoLATEoJOGMOHANoSATNAMIoR/OoVILL-oNO.o1oKATHIAKHUNDAoGAON,o P.O.oANDoP.S.oSAPEKHATIoDIST.oCHARAIDEO,oASSAMoPIN-785692 2:oSMTI.oJUNUoGANJU oW/OoSRIoUTTAMoGONJUo R/OoTINGRAIoBANGALIoGAONo P.S.oANDoP.O.oTINSUKIAo DIST.oTINSUKIA oASSAMo PIN-786125 3:oSMTI.oMAMTAoDAS oD/OoLATEoBHAGARATIoDASo R/OoVILL-oLOHARIoKACHARIoGAON oNEARoSIVDHAMo P.S.oANDoP.O.oTINSUKIAo DIST.oTINSUKIA oASSAMo PIN-78612o VERSUSo STATEoOFoASSAMoANDoANR.o THROUGHoTHEoPP,oASSAM 2:SMTI.oROSHMIoDAS oD/OoSHRIoNANDAoKISHOREoDASo R/OoVILL-oLOHARIoKACHARIoGAONo NEARoSIVDHAMo P.S.oANDoP.O.oTINSUKIAo DIST.oTINSUKIA oASSAMo PINoNO.o78612o Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY