Tadep Taggu and 2 Ors v. The State of Ap

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040002692023

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn. 28/2023 1:Tadep Taggu and 2 Ors. S/o Late Tatak Taggu, Resident of Riga Village, PO/PS Boleng, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. Contact No. 6909665022 2: Tangiat Taggu S/o Late T. Taggu

Resident of S.S. Mission (Jarkong) PO/PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. Contact No. 9366847293 3: Nani Ngupok S/o Lt. Ganmak Ngupok

Resident of S.S. Mission (Jarkong) PO/PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. Contact No. 936622713 VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF AP Represented by the learned Public Prosecutor.

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ninnong Ratan Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

Page No.# 2/5 :: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

20.03.2023

Heard the learned counsel Mr. N. Ratan appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶2This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing and setting aside of the G.R. Case No.62/2019 pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶3On 30.11.2009 at about 9 A.M., Shri Tadep Taggu was driving a motorcycle bearing Registration No.AR-14-1128. Suddenly, an old man named Shri Ganmak Ngupok, aged about 72 years was crossing the road and the motorcycle driven by Shri Tadep Taggu hit him. He sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, at AMCH, Dibrugarh, Shri Ganmak Ngupok succumbed to his injuries. Police registered the case under Section 279/304(A) of the IPC read with Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Finally, on conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid against the petitioner no.1 Tadep Taggu.

¶4Thereafter, on 03.01.2010, Tadep Taggu and Nani Ngupok, the son of late Ganmak Ngupok appeared before the local Kebang. The Kebang decided that Tadep Taggu will pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- Page No.# 3/5 (rupees one lakh fifty thousand) to Ngupok's family. Both sides also agreed to withdraw the police case.

¶5The offences, as motioned herein before, are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, both sides filed this joint application/petition for quashing the criminal proceeding after exercise of the power of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶6I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.

¶7The guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. -versus-Bhajanlal and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other Page No.# 4/5 materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

¶8In Bhajanlal (supra), the Supreme Court has cautioned that the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be sparingly used by the High Courts. The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is meant to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

¶9Here, in this case, both sides have compromised the matter according to their customs and also agreed to pay compensation to the victim's family.

¶10I find that there is little possibility of future conviction in this case. Thus, it is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Page No.# 5/5 Accordingly, the criminal proceeding of G.R. Case No.62/2019 pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh is quashed and set aside subject to deposit of fine, which may be imposed upon the petitioner(s)/petitioner no.1 under Sections 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant