Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 9 September, 2021
Author: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Bench: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010136712021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./463/2021
HANIF ALI AND ANR
S/O LATE SADEM ALI
R/O VILL- HATISOLA PAM
P.S. CHHAYGAON
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
2: MONOWARA KHATUN @ MUR MONOBARA
R/O VILL- HATISOLA PAM
P.S. CHHAYGAON
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP.BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
09.09.2021 Heard Mr B Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
Page No.# 2/4
2. By this application filed under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the criminal proceeding pertaining to Sessions Case No. 2/2017, corresponding to GR No. 27/2014, under Sections 448/376/307/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon.
3. The contention that has been raised in the present petition is that the victim being a married woman has lodged the FIR after continuation of three times of such incidents and whereas, the medical report did not support the offence of rape and whereas, the victim has now sworn an affidavit, compromising the matter at the intervention of family members and others and whereas, the victim herself has come forward and filed the present petition, joining hands with the accused petitioner, for quashing the FIR. So, the entire proceeding pertaining to the aforesaid case may be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Others -Vs- State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466, to submit that the offence under Section 307 IPC has also been allowed to have been compromised despite the same falls under the category of heinous and serious offence.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1) Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others -Vs- State of Gujarat; reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, and 2) State of Madhya Pradesh -Vs- Laxmi Narayan; reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688.
6. In Parbatbhai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, in exercise in power of Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking, not private in nature, but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
Page No.# 3/4
7. Reiterating the same view in Laxmi Narayan (supra), it has been held that quashing would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case-Court has to apply mind to following-
i) Whether crime against society or against individual alone and kind of dispute, whether civil or criminal,
ii) Seriousness, nature and category/kind of crime/offence and how committed,
iii) Whether offence under special statute,
iv) Stage of proceedings,
v) Conduct and antecedents of accused, whether accused absconding, why absconding and how he managed to compromise with complainant-
Criminal proceedings arising out of commercial transactions or matrimonial or family disputes when having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character may be quashed when parties have resolved entire dispute amongst themselves-But such power cannot be used in respect of heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape and dacoity, etc. -Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
8. Turning to the present case in hand, it is found that the informant is a married lady and she is the complainant/informant in the said case and the case was filed far back in the year 2013 and she has already given her evidence before the learned trial Court, implicating the petitioner in the year 2017 and as many as seven witnesses have been examined and such a settlement has now been executed on 30.07.2021.
9. The above findings itself is indicative of fact that such a settlement has been arrived at the last stage of litigation, whereas, the victim has already given her statement before the Court, implicating the accused petitioner with the offence alleged. Such an offence against women has an impact in the society, in terms of the legal pronouncement discussed above, compounding of offence of rape cannot be permitted, considering the Page No.# 4/4 nature and gravity of the same.
10. In the case of Narinder Singh, the offence under Section 307 IPC was allowed to be settled, keeping in view that the incident happened due to the property dispute between the parties, which was settled immediately after the occurrence and the evidence even not started and the parties lived peacefully, immediately after the occurrence and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that "even though the nature of injury can be established by producing the doctor, who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused those injuries, and the chances of conviction, therefore, appears to be remote".
11. In view of the legal parlance as well as in the given fact situation, the proposition made by the petitioners that they should be given the benefit of settlement, cannot at all be maintained. The exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC is very much restricted and any liberal approach by this Court in such serious offences is not permitted and hence, rejected.
12. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant