Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Jordan Aaron Pariat vs . State Of Meghalaya & Anr. on 22 February, 2022
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No. 10
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 26 of 2021
Date of Decision: 22.02.2022
Shri. Jordan Aaron Pariat Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. Sr. GA. for R 1.
Mr. D.K. Warjri, 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. Matter taken up via Hybrid mode.
2. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 64(A) of 2019 u/s 323/506/354 of the Indian Penal Code pending trial before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong.
3. Facts as could be gathered from the petition is that on 20.05.2017, the respondent No. 2 had invited some friends, in fact four friends, one girl and three boys to stay overnight at her house at Nongrah. At about 12.00 midnight or so, the petitioner came to the house and kicked the door and then pulled Ms. Samanka Lamar, the lady friend of the respondent No. 2, out of the house. When the respondent No. 2 tried to intervene, she was assaulted by 1 the petitioner as a result of which she sustained injuries on the eye. The petitioner also used abusive language and threatened her and her friends with dire consequences.
4. The next day that is on 21.05.2017 the respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR before the Rynjah Police Station, Shillong following which the police issued a notice under Section 41 (A) Cr.P.C. calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Officer In-Charge. The petitioner was then send for medical examination and was eventually arrested by the Investigating Agency. However, on 31.05.2017, he was released on bail.
5. In the meantime, the case under investigation was concluded with the Investigating Officer(I/O) filing the charge sheet after finding that a prima facie case was well established against the accused/petitioner herein and he was accordingly send up to stand trial for offences under Sections 323/506 and 354 IPC. The matter was taken cognizance of by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong and registered as G.R. Case No 64(A) of 2019.
6. The incident relates to the year 2017 and since then, circumstances have changed and the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, particularly with the intervention of the family members from both sides, have become amicable and peaceful. In this context, the parties feels that it is no longer necessary to pursue the matter in Court and accordingly, a compromise have been reached by them and a Compromise Deed dated 15.03.2021 was drawn up in this respect. The contents of the said Compromise Deed, inter alia, would reveal that the parties thereto have agreed to resolve their disputes and shall not claim anything against each other.
7. Heard Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the concerned parties have now settled their misunderstanding and misconception and have accordingly entered into a compromise and as such, continuing with the case would be a futile exercise 2 and a waste of the precious time of the Court. Sections 323 and 506 IPC being compoundable under Section 320 of the code of criminal procedure, however Section 354 IPC not being compoundable, therefore this Court is approached with a prayer for exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bring a quietus to the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.
2.
8. It is also further submitted that on being directed by this Court, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit to state that as a consequence of the incident which took place on 20.05.2017, the petitioner had lodged an FIR against one Shri Jason Phanbuh alleging that he was assaulted by the accused on the said night of 20.05.2017. The FIR was taken note of and on investigation launched, the matter also culminated in the filing of a charge sheet against the said Shri Jason Phanbuh with G.R. Case No 294(A) of 2019 being registered. However, on the compromise reached at between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 herein, a similar deed of compromise was executed between the petitioner and the said Shri Jason Phanbuh and since the sections of law are all compoundable, the said deed of compromise was brought to the notice of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong for necessary orders.
9. On the contention of the learned Addl. Sr. GA, Mr. H. Kharmih appearing for the respondent No. 1 that there is a third person involved in the dispute, that is Ms. Samanka Lamar who is actually the victim of the said assault by the petitioner herein relating to the incident of 20.05.2017, Mr. Nongbri has submitted that the said Ms. Samanla Lamar, although she was present at the place of occurrence on the 20.05.2017, yet she was not named as witness or victim in the charge sheet and moreover, she is now the wife of the petitioner and as such, she would not have anything adverse against the petitioner.
10. Finally, Mr. Nongbri has submitted that in case of this kind, there are a number of authorities, both by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by 3 various High Courts and more particularly, by this Court which is relied upon by the petitioner to support his case and as these authorities (listed below) may be perused by this Court for the purpose of rendering justice to the parties.
(i) Narinder Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Anr: (2014) 6 SCC 466;
(ii) Shri Derek Randall Jyrwa v. State of Meghalaya & Anr:
High Court of Meghalaya, Crl. Petn.No. 23 of 2019;
(iii) Shri Teilang Nongrum v. State of Meghalaya & Anr: High Court of Meghalaya, Crl. Petn No. 14 of 2020 and
(iv) Shri Basandorlang Thangkhiew v. State of Meghalaya & Anr; 2021 SCC Online MEGH 68.
11. It is prayed that this petition may be allowed and necessary orders be passed to quash the proceedings of G.R. Case No 64(A) of 2019.
12. Also heard Mr. D.K. Warjri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 who has submitted that firstly, the respondent No. 2 would endorse the authenticity of the said Deed of Compromise dated 15.03.2021 and as such, there is no fraud or foul play, as far as the execution of the same is concerned.
13. It is also submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have now amicably settled their differences and are living peaceably and as such, the respondent No. 2 is no longer willing to pursue with the case and continuation of the same would prove futile as nothing will come out of it, rather the valuable time of the Court will be wasted if the same is pursued.
14. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has also been endorsed by the respondent No. 2 who has prayed that the proceedings of the said G.R. Case No 64(A) of 2019 be quashed.
15. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. Sr. G.A. appearing on behalf of the State respondent has initially expressed his reservations as to whether it is proper for this Court to accept the said Deed of Compromise in the light of the evidence that another person, probably the victim is also involved in the 4 case, however on not being able to prove through record or documentary proof the factum of such contention, has submitted that the discretion of this Court may be applied while disposing of this petition.
16. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors (supra) at paragraph 29.5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court while exercising its powers, examination is to be made as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice. Again, in paragraph 29.2, it has been held that when parties have reached a settlement and, on that basis, a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the High Court would be required to examine as to whether ends of justice would be secured or prevention of the abuse of the process of the court has been carried out. This can only be borne out from the facts and circumstances of the case.
17. The genesis of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 is an alleged altercation amongst them, which has probably resulted in simple injuries to both parties. However, with the afflux of time, better sense has prevailed and the parties have finally realize that it would be futile to prolong the dispute or differences amongst them for which the respondent No. 2 has made it clear that she is not willing to prosecute the matter. In such a situation, the ends of justice would be suitably served if the last strain of conflict between the parties is severed. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner listed above, to the extent indicated would therefore be relevant in the context of the case between the parties.
18. The respondent No. 2 as evident from these proceedings has supported the case of the petitioner and has confirmed the authenticity of the said Deed of Compromise and has further submitted that continuation of the said criminal proceedings would be futile in the long run.
19. The objection raised by the learned Addl. Sr. GA in view of the observations above, is also not relevant, as far as this instant case is concerned.
520. Without going further in this matter, all things considered, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a strong case for quashing of the proceedings in GR Case No. 64(A)2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong.
21. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The said GR Case No. 64(A)2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong is hereby quashed.
22. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order upon the concerned Magistrate for due compliance.
23. Petition disposed of. No cost.
Judge Meghalaya 22.02.2022 "N. Swer, Stenographer"
6