Tamok Gammeng and Anr v. The State of Ap

ORDER Date : 16.03.2023 Heard Mr. D. Ado, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional PP, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶2This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for setting aside and quashing the FIR dated

07.05.2006 registered being Boleng P.S. Case No. 11/06 as well as the charge-sheet being No. 14/06 under Section 279/304(A) of the IPC in connection with G.R. Case No. 11/2020 pending before the Court of JMFC, Pangin.

¶3This present petition is filed by the accused in the aforesaid charge-sheet and he is the petitioner No. 2 in the present application. This petition is also joined by the petitioner No. 1, who is the complainant of the alleged offence. Petitioner No. 1 lodged the impugned F.I.R. Further, this present petition is filed in a background that the complainant and the accused had settled the matter amicably between them and therefore, this court in exercise of 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 contents of the F.I.R. discloses that on 06.05.2006, the petitioner No. 2 while carrying consignments to Boleng P.W.D. office from Aalo, his tata Page No.# 3/6 mobile vehicle collided speeding bike rode by victim causing serious bodily injuries resulting the victim succumbed to death at Aalo hospital. In this regard, the petitioner No. 1 (father of the deceased victim) lodged an FIR before the Boleng Police Station and thereafter same was registered as Boleng P.S. Case No. 11/2006 under Section 279/304(A) of the IPC.

¶5After the registration of the FIR, the case was investigated by the Investigating Officer and Charge Sheet was laid against the petitioner No. 2 vide Charge Sheet No. 14/06 dated 29.07.2006 corresponding to Boleng P.S. Case No. 11/2006 under Section 279/304(A) of the IPC.

¶6Subsequently, the petitioners have mutually settled the matter vide Kebang Decision dated 28.05.2006, which is annexed in this petition as Annexure -2.

¶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 criminal proceeding being FIR dated 07.05.2006 registered being Boleng P.S. Case No. 11/06 as well as the charge-sheet being No. 14/06 under Section 279/304(A) of the IPC in connection with G.R. Case No. 11/2020 pending before the Court of JMFC, Pangin.

¶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 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. Page No.# 4/6

¶9In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Laxmi Narayan, reported 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.

¶10For 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 Page No.# 5/6 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 including the charge sheet, this Court is of the view that the incident was an accident and the prosecution do not involve heinous or serious offences. If the offences are allowed to be compounded, that will also have no serious impact on the society. The record also reveals that the accused was not absconding and the settlement is arrived in a customary way involving the entire society belonging to the petitioners i.e. accused and informant.

¶12In the aforesaid backdrop, this court is of the view that 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 Page No.# 6/6 criminal proceeding being FIR dated 07.05.2006 registered being Boleng P.S. Case No. 11/06 as well as the charge-sheet being No. 14/06 under Section 279/304(A) of the IPC in connection with G.R. Case No. 11/2020 pending before the Court of JMFC, Pangin. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040001852023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn. 23/2023 1:Tamok Gammeng and Anr. S/o Late Tabuk Gammeng, Permanent Resident of Village Tarak, PO Pangin, PS Boleng, District Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Muknya Kamnyi S/o Lt. Komuk Kamnyi Permanent Resident of Village Wak Aalo PO/PS Aalo District West Siang Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF AP Represented through the Ld. Public Prosecutor. Advocate for the Petitioner : A. Ado Kemo Lollen Advocate for the Respondent : T. Jini, P P of AP Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY