Tania Anga and Anr v. The State of Ap

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040013822022

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn. 120/2022 1:Tania Anga and Anr. Daughter of Lt. Tania Ering, a permanent resident of Village Kembang, PO TarakLengdi, PS Palin, District Kra Daadi, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing C/o Shri Tania Kasanti, Range Forest Officer, Indira Gandhi Park, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Dongche Hapung Son of Shri Dongche Niglar

a Permanent Resident of Village Sera PO and PS Koloriang District Kurung Kumey Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Sangrik Colony 6 KM PO and PS Itanagar District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh.

(M) 883701198 VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF AP To be represented through the Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh.

Advocate for the Petitioner : Gimi Tarak Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

27.03.2023

Heard Mr. T. Garam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh/sole respondent.

¶2This is a joint application filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the criminal proceeding of Itanagar WPS Case No.60/2017 corresponding to Charge Sheet No.77/2017, dated 02.09.2017 under Sections 365/354/379/323 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia Arunachal Pradesh.

¶3One day, the first petitioner Miss Tania Anga had to take shelter somewhere because of rain. It may be mentioned that she had parked her scooty and took shelter near Shiv Mandir area. At that time, the second petitioner Dngche Hapung, who was driving Scorpio SUV, offered the girl to give her a lift. The first petitioner agreed to that and boarded the Scorpio SUV of the second petitioner.

¶4The first petitioner claims that while inside the vehicle, the second petitioner started to touch her. She bit his hand and came out of the SUV.

¶5Police registered the case under Sections 365/354/379/323 of the Indian Penal Code and finally, the charge sheet was laid under the said sections of law.

¶6Now, both the petitioners, Miss Tania Anga and Shri Dongche Hapung have jointly approached this Court stating that they have compromised the matter. They have filed a written Deed of Compromise.

¶7I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the Page No.# 3/4 learned counsels of both sides.

¶8The 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 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 Page No.# 4/4 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."

¶9There is no doubt that the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of the court. In this case, I do not see any possibility of future conviction. Under such circumstance, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue in the trial court, would be an abuse of the process of the court.

¶10Therefore, this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding of Itanagar WPS Case No.60/2017 corresponding to Charge Sheet No.77/2017, dated 02.09.2017 under Sections 365/354/379/323 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia Arunachal Pradesh is quashed. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant