Bado Natung and Anr v. The State of Ap

ORDER Date : 19-06-2023 Heard Mr. N. Kanu, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/5

¶2This is an application under section 482 of Cr.PC, 1973 praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding of GR case no. 580/16 corresponding to Naharlagun PS case no. 166/2016 under section 279/427/337 IPC, 1860 pending before the JMFC, Yupia on the basis of settlement.

¶3The case in brief is that an FIR was lodged on 17.08.2016 by petitioner No. 1 alleging that the petitioner No. 2 had hit his Santro car from behind and damaged his rear side of the car. Pursuant to the complaint, an FIR was registered being Naharlagun PS case No. 166/2016 under section 279/427/337 IPC. After the completion of the investigation, the police had submitted a charge sheet and charges were framed against the petitioner No. 2. The stage of the proceeding is evidence. In the meantime, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had entered into a settlement on 16.12.2022.

¶4Mr. N. Kanu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the parties have entered into a settlement deed without there being any coercion or threat from any angle, the continuance of the criminal proceeding would be futile and the chance of conviction is remote and bleak which may amount to abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, prays for quashing the criminal proceeding of GR case no. 580/16 under section 279/427/337 IPC, 1860 pending before the JMFC, Yupia.

¶5Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional PP fairly submits that in view of the settlement between the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, the continuance of the proceeding may be futile, and accordingly prays that this Court may consider the matter as deem appropriate.

¶6I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for Page No.# 3/5 the parties and also scrutinized the materials available on record.

¶7The principle of law regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings by exercising power under section 482 of Cr.PC, 1973 has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Lakshmi Narayan and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 which is reproduced herein below: "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 Page No.# 4/5 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 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. "

¶8In the case of Kapil Gupta V. State of NCT of Delhi, (2022) SCC Online SC 1030, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court while exercising its power under section 482 Cr.PC, the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, but is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship.

¶9Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record this court is of the view that the continuance of the proceeding of GR case no. 580/16 under section 279/427/337 IPC, 1860 pending before the JMFC, Yupia may be futile since the matter has been settled between the parties and the possibility of conviction seems remote and bleak.

¶10In view of the discussion made herein above, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for exercising Page No.# 5/5 the power under section 482 Cr.PC., 1973 for quashing the aforesaid criminal proceeding pending before the learned JMFC, Yupia.

¶11Accordingly, the criminal proceeding of GR case no. 580/16 corresponding to Naharlagun PS case no. 166/2016 under section 279/427/337 IPC, 1860 pending before the JMFC, Yupia is hereby set aside and quashed.

¶12In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040006252023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn. 80/2023 1:Bado Natung and Anr. S/o Lt. Y. Natung, A Resident of P Sector, PO/PS Itanagar, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tayeng Kakum S/o Shri Tayeng Mangha Resident of Village Tarasso PO/PS Balijan District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh. Mobile No. 91986227664 VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF AP Represented by the Public Prosecutor. Advocate for the Petitioner : N Rama Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE