Charu Kaniang v. The State of Ap

ORDER Date : 25.07.2023 Heard Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶2This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside and quashing of the criminal proceeding of the G.R. Case No. 162/2000 arising out of Naharlagun P.S Case No. 132/2000 under Sections 457/323/34 IPC pending before Court of learned JMFC, Yupia and charge-sheet dated

18.09.2000 filed in connection with the above case.

¶3This is a joint application filed both by the informant and the victim with a prayer for setting aside and quashing the proceeding of the case as well as the charge-sheet filed in the said criminal proceeding. It is stated that at the time of lodging of the FIR in the year 2000, both the accused/victim were pursuing their studies and all of them were of young ages and the alleged incident occurred only due to some quarrel which took place between the parties. But after the said incident there were settlement between the parties as the incident occurred only due to some misunderstanding between the parties. The matter has been amicably settled in the year 2002 and upon the letter of apology written by the accused persons, withdrawal letter of the case was also submitted before the Extra Assistant Commissioner District Papum Pare on 04.10.2002, Page No.# 3/8 stating inter-alia that the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties and both the accused and the victim are maintaining cordial relationship with each other.

¶4The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the accused in this case and the petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 are the victim, respectively, in the above referred G. R. Case No. 162/2000, arising out of Naharlagun P.S Case No. 132/2000.

¶5It is stated that on the date of the incident, i.e., on 08.09.2000, all the four petitioners were playing cards and they also took alcohol but when the petitioner No. 1 went for urinal under the state of intoxication and when he passed urinal near the house of Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4, there was a quarrel between the parties and scuffle as well as push-pull also happened between the parties and both the accused and the victim sustained minor injury in the said incident. The incident took place more than 20 years ago and the matter has already been settled between the parties in the year 2002. But after receiving summoned from the Court in the year 2014, both the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 appeared before the Court of learned JMFC, Yupia and due to sudden spread of Covid-19 the case remained pending for trial and the summoning of the prosecution witnesses was initiated only from 10.02.2020, though they approached before the learned JMFC-Cum-Extra Assistant Commissioner for compromise/withdrawal of the case, but as the case is also charge-sheeted under Section 457 IPC, which is a non-compoundable offence, no order could be passed by the learned JMFC, Yupia.

¶6It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Page No.# 4/8 case is private in nature and more so, the case falls under second limb of Section 457 IPC and there is no allegation of commission of theft by the accused persons and accordingly, he submitted that the case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh-vs-Laxmi Narayan; reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 as well as in the case of State of Haryana-vs-Bhajan Lal; reported in

(1992) Supp(1) SCC 335.

¶7In this context, Ms. L. Hage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that she has no objection in the prayer made by the petitioners, as both the parties have already settled their dispute amicably long back in the year 2002 and also it is seen from the nature of allegation that the case falls under second limb of Section 457 IPC. She also submitted that the case is purely private in nature, and the chance of conviction is also bleak in this case, even if the proceeding is allowed to continue further.

¶8After hearing submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have perused the case record and annexures filed along with the petition.

¶8In the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "11.3 In the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, after considering the decision in the case of Gian Singh (supra), in paragraph 29, this Court summed up as under: "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement Page No.# 5/8 and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the 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.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. Page No.# 6/8

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 proving 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. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the Page No.# 7/8 trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." 9.4 In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), again this Court has had an occasion to consider whether the High Court can quash the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Considering a catena of decisions of this Court on the point, this Court summarised the following propositions"

¶9In the instant case, both the parties have amicably settled their disputes, therefore, possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak and the disputes between the parties are predominantly private in nature and further proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶10Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the fact that both the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and further considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I find that it is a fit case where the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised and accordingly, proceeding of the G.R. Case No. 162/2000 arising out of Naharlagun P.S Case No. 132/2000 under Sections 457/323/34 IPC pending before Court of learned JMFC, Yupia and charge-sheet dated 18.09.2000 filed in connection with the above case is set aside and quashed. Page No.# 8/8

¶11With the above observation, this criminal petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040007852023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./104/2023 Charu Kaniang S/O Late Charu Marik,Vill-Galang,PO-Chambang,PS-Palin,District-Kra Daadi. Permanent resident of Karsingsa,PO/PS-Banderdewa,Papumpare VERSUS THE STATE OF AP Through learned Public Prosecutor 2:Charu Karba S/O Late Charu Taguing Age: 41 Occupation : 3:Habung Ripa(Victim) Age: 48 Occupation : 4:Habung Llailang(Informant) Age: 52 Occupation Advocate for the Petitioner : Lissing Perme Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA