Tripura High Court
Papia Datta & Ors vs The State Of Tripura ----Respondent(S) on 12 July, 2018
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL PETN 37 OF 2018
Papia Datta & Ors. ----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura ----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Deb, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.Choudhury, P.P.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
12/07/2018
This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for invoking inherent power of this Court and to discharge the accused-petitioners from the liability of facing criminal trial in connection with case No. PRC(WP)73/2018 under Sections 447/434/325/384/506/34 of IPC.
Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant-victim has lodged an FIR against the accused-petitioners herein. He was attacked by the accused-petitioners in regard to a land dispute. On the basis of the said complaint, the Officer-in-Charge, West Agartala P.S. registered a case bearing No. 2017WAG036 dated 30.04.2017, under Sections 447/434/325/384/506/34 of IPC.
After completing the investigation, the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioners and after filing of charge-sheet, the parties in dispute have arrived at a mutual settlement and in pursuance of that settlement the complainant-victim does not want to proceed with the criminal case now pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.7, Agartala, West Tripura. Page 2 of 3
When the matter came up on 06.07.2018, this Court had passed a direction to the learned counsel of the accused- petitioners to appear before this Court including the informant- victim for their personal hearing. Accordingly, all the accused- petitioners as well as the complainant-victim have appeared today. I have heard them personally and the complainant-victim has stated that the matter has been compromised between them and he does not want to proceed with the criminal case which will cause bitterness amongst them.
Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.
Mr. Choudhury, learned P.P. has drawn my attention that since the matter is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class the instant petition is to be filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. but not under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. To a query of this Court, learned P.P. has submitted that since the matter has been compromised the accused petitioners may be discharged.
Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision in Narender Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466) wherein at Para 29.2 the Apex Court held: (SCC Pg 483) "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." Page 3 of 3 Mr. Deb, learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Rev. P.No.96 of 2014 wherein this Court compounded the offences of the accused even under Section 354 of IPC since the parties to the case entered into an amicable settlement.
Having considered the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that since the dispute has been settled between the parties, there is no need to proceed further with the criminal proceeding which would be futile exercise of the proceeding of the Court.
Consequently, the proceeding in connection with Case No. PRC (WP) 73 of 2018 is quashed. Accused petitioners are discharged accordingly.
With the above observations, the Crl. Petn. stands disposed of.
JUDGE sanjay