Ashraful Hussain v. The State of Assam and 2 Ors

ORDER Date : 20.09.2024

Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Ms. M. Khatun, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶2This is an application under 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. of Barpeta P.S. Case No. 2315/2020 as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in PRC Case No. 574/2022, under Sections 279/338 IPC, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta.

¶3It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, that both the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are the mother and father of the petitioner and the accident had happened when the present petitioner was riding the motorcycle and the respondent No. 2 was sitting as a pillion rider and for which, the respondent No. 3 had lodged an F.I.R., which has been registered under Sections 279/338 IPC. But, subsequent to the registration of the F.I.R., both the parties appeared before the I.O. with a prayer to withdraw the case as the matter has already been settled amongst the family members. But, in spite of that request, the I.O. filed the charge-sheet against the present petitioner and hence, finding no other alternative, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. as well as the subsequent criminal Page No.# 3/7 proceedings, as aforesaid.

¶4In support of his submissions, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, further relied on following decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as decisions of this Court.

(i) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [(2019) 5 SCC 688]

(ii) Alim Uddin Vs. The State of Assam & Anr. (Crl. Pet. No. 596/2019)

(iii) Eliyas Hussain Vs. The State of Assam & Anr. (Crl. Pet. No. 384/2023)

(iv) Nur Nashib Ahmed Vs. The State of Assam & Anr. (Crl. Pet. No. 992/2023)

¶5Citing those decisions, Mr. Ahmed submitted that the present case also situated in the same footing and both the victim as well as the informant, who are the parents/ guardian of the petitioner, has compromised the matter as they do not have any grievance against their children. Accordingly, he submitted that it is a fit case wherein the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised for quashing the criminal proceeding pending against the present petitioner. He further submitted that as the matter has already been compromised/settled between the parties, the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak even if the proceeding is allowed to be continued.

Page No.# 4/7

¶6In this context, Ms. M. Khatun, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, submitted that the respondents have no objection if the present petition is allowed by quashing the F.I.R. as well as the criminal proceeding initiated against the present petitioner.

¶7On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that such kind of offence cannot be considered as an offence of private nature and the Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the case of rash and negligent driving as the crime against the society and it has to be dealt with cautiously. Accordingly, he submitted that the compromised between the parties cannot be the sole ground for quashing the criminal proceeding.

¶8Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted in this regard that as both the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are the parents of the petitioner and since they have amicably settled the matter amongst themselves, there is no chance that the respondents will appear before the Court and will adduce evidence against the petitioner. Rather, if the criminal proceeding is allowed to be continued, it will be an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶9I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

¶10It is seen that the present respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are the parents of the petitioner and the F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner. However, they have resolved their dispute amicably and they are now living peacefully without any grievances with each other. Page No.# 5/7

¶11In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688, the Apex Court has held as under: "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. 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. 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 Page No.# 6/7 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."

¶12Here in this case, it is seen that the dispute between the petitioners has arisen out of an accident and they have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves and they are now living peacefully without any differences and therefore, even if the proceeding is allowed to be continued, the chance of conviction is also very remote and bleak.

¶13In view of above, ends of justice would be meted out if the petition is allowed. Further, since the matter has already been settled between the parties, it is unlikely that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 will depose against the present petitioner and in that event allowing the proceeding to continue before the learned Court below, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶14Under the above facts and circumstances and also considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the criminal proceeding pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The F.I.R. of Barpeta P.S. Case No. 2315/2020 as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in PRC Case No. 574/2022, under Sections 279/338 IPC, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, stand set aside and quashed.

Page No.# 7/7

¶15In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/7 GAHC010057002024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCrl.Pet./310/2024o ASHRAFULoHUSSAINo S/OoJAKIRoHUSSAIN,oVILL-oHARIPUR,oP.O.-GUMAFULBARI,oP.S.-TARABARI, DIST-BARPETA,oASSAM,oPIN-781302 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo2oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoPUBLICoPROSECUTOR,oASSAM 2:ANOWARAoKHATUN oW/OoJAKIRoHUSSAIN oVILL-oHARIPUR oP.O.-GUMAFULBARI oP.S.-TARABARI oDIST-BARPETA oASSAM oPIN-781302 3:JAKIRoHUSSAIN oS/OoLATEoRABIoKHAN oVILL-oHARIPUR oP.O.-GUMAFULBARI oP.S.-TARABARI oDIST-oBARPETA oASSAM oPIN-78130o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oSoAHMED,oMSoNoAKTAR,MRoMoRAHMANo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAM,oMS.oM.oKHATUNo(R-2,3)oo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA