Lishi Rina @ Tina and 2 Ors v. The State of Ap

ORDER Date : 29.06.2023 Heard Mr. T. Topu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶2This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for setting aside and quashing the proceeding of the G.R. Case No. 243/2022 in F.I.R. No. 43/2022 registered as Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 43/2022 under Sections 498-A/427/323 IPC.

¶3This present petition is filed by the accused in the aforesaid case and they are the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, in the present application. This petition is also joined by the petitioner No. 1 who is the complainant of the alleged offence and she lodged the 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 petitioner No. 1 is wife of the petitioner No. 2. Due to the extra marital affairs of the petitioner No. 2 with petitioner No. 3, there was some altercation amongst the family members of them. In the aforesaid backdrop, the FIR was lodged on 24.03.2022 by the petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, before the Officer-In-Charge, Itanagar Women Police Station which was registered as Itanagar Page No.# 3/5 Women PS Case No. 43/2022 under Sections 498-A/427/323 of IPC.

¶5Subsequently, the petitioners have mutually settled the matter and entered into a Deed of Mutual Settlement on 15.01.2023, executed before the Executive Magistrate, Capital, Naharlagun at Arunachal Pradesh, which is part of the present petition. In the Deed of Mutual Settlement, the present accused is described as 2nd Party and the complainant is described as 1st party. The said Settlement discloses the following:- "Whereas, family dispute arose between the parties in the month of April 2022. Thus, the 1st party lodged FIR against the 2nd party before Itanagar Women Police Station. Accordingly, police has registered case vide Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 43/2022 under Sections 498-A/427/323 IPC."

¶6On the basis of the disclosure, the following terms were incorporated in the settlement amongst other terms. "1. That the first party has voluntarily forgiven to the second party and further agreed to withdraw the Itanagar WPS Case No. 43/22 of Itanagar Women Police Station which is pending against to the second party, and the second party has also has voluntarily agreed to maintain cordial relationship with the first party.

¶2Both the party has agreed to respect each other and committed to create peaceful environment in the family in days to come.

¶3Further both the parties voluntarily agreed that in future they will not contest the case each other before the Court of law or in any police station after the execution of this deed of mutual settlement."

¶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 proceeding of the G.R. Case No. 243/2022 in F.I.R. No. 43/2022 registered as Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 43/2022 under Page No.# 4/5 Sections 498-A/427/323 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 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.

¶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 Page No.# 5/5 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."

¶11Considering the aforesaid facts and also considering the nature of offence as well as considering the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife respectively, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case, where this Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside and quashing the proceeding of the G.R. Case No. 243/2022 in F.I.R. No. 43/2022 registered as Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 43/2022 under Sections 498-A/427/323 IPC inasmuch as the allegation arises out of matrimonial dispute and the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶12Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing the proceeding of the G.R. Case No. 243/2022 in F.I.R. No. 43/2022 registered as Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 43/2022 under Sections 498-A/427/323 IPC. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040006172023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn. 78/2023 1:Lishi Rina @ Tina and 2 Ors. W/o Lishi Tajam, Resident of Model Village, Naharlagun, PO/PS Naharlagun, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Lishi Tajam @ Tai S/o Late Lishi Lel Resident at Model Village Naharlagun PO/PS Naharlagun District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Giogi Yapi Nabam D/o Late Giogi Takio Presently residing at Lekhi Village Nirjuli PO/PS Nirjuli District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF AP Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh Gauhati High Court Itanagar Permanent Bench, Naharlagun. Advocate for the Petitioner : Taba Topu Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY