Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Basandorlang Thangkhiew vs . State Of Meghalaya & Anr. on 16 March, 2021
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No. 05
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 11 of 2021
Date of Decision: 16.03.2021
Shri. Basandorlang Thangkhiew Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Nongbri, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Abraham, GA. for R 1.
Mr. K.C. Gautam, Adv. for R 2.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. On 30.08.2018 a Motor Vehicle accident took place at a place called Mawlai Nongkwar, Shillong, wherein in the said accident, the petitioner herein riding his motorbike bearing registration No. ML-05-H-1231 along with pillion rider (L) Steven Dkhar allegedly dashed against an upcoming truck bearing registration No. ML-06-4248 resulting in the said pillion rider sustaining grievous injuries. The said pillion rider was then taken to Civil Hospital, Shillong, whereby the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital referred him to Supercare Hospital, Sawlad, Shillong and thereafter to NEIGRIHMS, Shillong for further treatment where he succumbed to his injuries on 31.08.2018.
3. The informer/respondent No. 2 then lodged an FIR on 04.09.2018 in connection with the said Motor Vehicle accident as a result of which a case was registered being Mawlai P.S. Case No. 82 (9) of 2018 under Section 1 279/338/427/304A of IPC read with Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
4. It may be mentioned that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said Mawlai P.S. Case No. 82 (9) of 2018 and subsequently released on bail, and on completion of the investigation, the I/O has filed the charge sheet on 24.01.2019. The matter was then taken up by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong being registered as G.R. Case No. 123(A) of 2019.
5. The petitioner appearing through Mr. P. Nongbri, learned counsel has submitted that on the facts stated above, during the pendency of the proceedings including the investigation by the I/O, the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner have come to an understanding that there has been some misunderstanding, as far as the said FIR is concerned and that the respondent No. 2 has agreed not to pursue with the complaint filed against the petitioner. In this connection, a Compromise Deed was drawn up on 11.09.2018 wherein, it was agreed that the first party and the second party therein would not pursue the complaint against the third party (petitioner herein) and would request the Officer-in-Charge, Mawlai Traffic Branch, Shillong to drop the Mawlai P.S. Case No. 82 (9) of 2018. However, it is understood that since some of the offences cited in the said Mawlai P.S. Case No. 82 (9) of 2018 are non-compoundable, therefore even though the parties have mutually agreed not to pursue with the matter, the Trial Court could not have disposed of the same being without jurisdiction in this regard.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has therefore approached this Court with an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C and with a prayer to quash the said FIR dated 04.09.2018 and/or allow compounding of the said G.R. Case No. 123(A) of 2019.
7. Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also concurred with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, it is submitted that the parties have amicably reached a compromise under the terms and conditions of the said Compromise Deed dated 11.09.2018 and as such, it would be a futile exercise for the Trial Court to pursue with the said case, which would eventually result in the acquittal of 2 the petitioner herein. It is therefore prayed that this petition may be allowed.
8. Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA for the respondent No. 1 has however submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the parties have come to a compromise as regard the said Criminal case indicated herein above, however one of the section involved is Section 304A IPC, which according to the learned GA is serious in nature and which requires careful consideration by this Court while deciding this matter. It is submitted that at this juncture, this petition may not be allowed.
9. It is worth mentioning that the parties have cited the case of Shri. Derek Randall Jyrwa v. State of Meghalaya & Anr, wherein vide order dated 19.08.2019 in Crl.Petn. No. 23 of 2019, this Court on the issue of quashing of the FIR and the related Criminal proceedings before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Shillong, which case also involves sections which are non-compoundable has vide the said order allowed the petition and the related case being G.R. (A) Case No. 156 of 2017 was quashed.
10. Reliance was also placed in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Anr: (2014) 6 SCC 466 at paragraph 29, particularly at paragraph 29.2 wherein, the Apex Court has held that:
"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."
11. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, the fact that Motor Vehicle accident had taken place leading to the lodgment of the FIR and the consequent proceedings before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Shillong is not denied.
12. The fact that the parties involved have also arrived at a compromise leading to the execution of the said Compromise Deed dated 11.09.2018 is also not denied.
313. The only consideration before this Court is whether allowing the proceedings to continue would be for the ends of justice or discontinuing of the same would be to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Logically speaking, since the complainant and the accused have reached a compromise, it would be a futile exercise for the Court to continue with the proceedings, considering the fact that the offences involved are not heinous in nature.
14. On proper circumspection, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has made out a case for putting to a halt the proceedings in the said G.R. Case No. 123(A) of 2019.
15. Viewed as above, this Court is hereby inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner and accordingly, the proceedings in the said G.R. Case No. 123(A) of 2019 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong is hereby quashed.
16. Registry is directed to furnish copy of this order to the Trial Court for due compliance. The petitioner is directed to appear before the said Trial Court on 22.03.2021 for the same.
17. Resultantly, this petition is hereby allowed and the same is disposed of. No cost.
Judge Meghalaya 16.03.2021 "D. Nary, PS"
4