Dhanmoni Rabha and Anr v. The State of Assam

ORDER

07.06.2024 Heard Mr. S. N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/4

¶2This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding of PRC Case No. 66/19 arising out of FIR dated 09.06.2018 in connection with Tihu P.S. Case No. 91/2018 registered under Section 379 of IPC which was registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the petitioner No. 2 against the petitioner No. 1.

¶3This present petition is filed jointly by the accused i.e. petitioner No. 1 and the informant i.e. petitioner No. 2, 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 petitioner No. 2, lodged an FIR before the Tihu P.S. against the petitioner No. 2, inter alia alleging that the petitioner No. 1 who was driving his vehicle bearing registration No. AS-25-BC-9049, left the vehicle on the highway and he took the engine of the said vehicle to his home and on the very next day, he reported that the trailer was missing. On the basis of such FIR, Officer-in-Charge of Tihu Police Station registered a case being Tihu P.S. Case No. 91/18 under Section 379 of IPC.

¶5After completion of the investigation, the I.O. of the case filed the charge sheet being CS No. 98/2018 under Section 379 of IPC against the petitioner No. 1 and his handyman, before the learned trial Court below.

¶6Subsequently, the petitioner No.2 i.e. informant came to know that the petitioner No. 1 is not involved in the aforesaid case and he was at his residence on the day of incident and that the petitioner No. 2 was not in collusion with the miscreants involved in the incident and the FIR was lodged out of misunderstanding. Later on, the trailer of the truck was also recovered. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner resolved the dispute amiably and the petitioner No. 2 decided to withdraw the case registered on the basis of FIR by Page No.# 3/4 filing this joint petition along with the petitioner No. 1.

¶7In 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 PRC Case No. 66/19 arising out of FIR dated 09.06.2018 in connection with Tihu P.S. Case No. 91/2018 registered under Section 379 of IPC.

¶8It 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.

¶09In 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.

¶10For 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; Page No.# 4/4

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 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." .

¶11From the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose shall be served, if the prosecution is allowed to continue inasmuch as it is the case of the informant that the FIR was lodge under mistake of fact. 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).

¶12Accordingly, this petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing the PRC Case No. 66/19 arising out of FIR dated 09.06.2018 in connection with Tihu P.S. Case No. 91/2018 registered under Section 379 of IPC. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010108622023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./520/2023 DHANMONI RABHA AND ANR S/O- LATE MOHADEV RABHA, R/O- VILL.- CHAMATAPARA, P.S. MUSHALPUR, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM 2: KUMAR GAURAV S/O- LATE UMESH KUMAR SINGH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SECTOR-2 NOONMATI P.S. NOONMATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S N TAMULI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY