Gauhati High Court
Abinash Nath vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 17 August, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010274432018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1257/2018
ABINASH NATH
S/O. LT. KARUNA KANTA NATH, R/O. VILL. RAMPUR, P.O. AND P.S.
SORBHOG, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM-781317.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY PP, ASSAM.
2:DR. NEKIB HUSSAIN
S/O. LT. HAJI MAKBUL HUSSAIN
PROPRIETOR
DNT ASSOCIATES
NOWAPARA
AZARA
P.O. AND P.S. AZARA
GUWAHATI-781017
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J C GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 17-08-2023 Heard Mr. J.C. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Also heard Mr. A Page No.# 2/5 Hawari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing the charge sheet No.272/2016 dated 31.12.2016 and criminal proceeding vide GR Case No.5400/2016 arising out of Sorbhog PS Case No.292/2016 under sections 406/506 IPC pending before the CJM, Barpeta.
3. This present petition is filed by the accused in the aforesaid charge-sheet and he is the petitioner in the present application. The present petition is filed in a background that the informant and the accused had settled the matter amicably between them and therefore, this court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should quash the criminal prosecution as the offences charged are not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is now to decide whether this is a fit case where this Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet No.272/2016 dated 31.12.2016 and criminal proceeding vide GR Case No.5400/2016 arising out of Sorbhog PS Case No.292/2016 under sections 406/506 IPC pending before the CJM, Barpeta.
5. It is by now well settled that a High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can very well quash a criminal proceeding or a criminal complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but while doing so, the Court is to follow certain principles as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab and Another reported in 2012 10 SCC 303, and in State of Page No.# 3/5 Madhya Pradesh -Vs- Laxmi Narayan and Others reported in 2019 5 SCC 688.
6. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Laxmi Narayan, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is submitted that instant case falls within the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. For ready reference, paragraph-13 of Laxmi Narayan (Supra) is extracted herein below:
"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-
compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
ii) ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;
iii) iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;
iv) iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal Page No.# 4/5 proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."
8. In the case in hand, it is pleaded by both the sides that the petitioner purchased Kraft paper Carton Box from the informant paying some part payment. But most of the boxes delivered were rotten and damaged. The petitioner asked the informant to replace Page No.# 5/5 the same but as the informant did not replace the said boxes, the petitioner lodged a case against the petitioner and in reply to it the informant filed a counter FIR against the petitioner.
9. Considering the factual background of the present case and taking note of the materials available on record and the Charge-Sheet, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case, where this Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet No.272/2016 dated 31.12.2016 and criminal proceeding vide GR Case No.5400/2016 arising out of Sorbhog PS Case No.292/2016 under sections 406/506 IPC pending before the CJM, Barpeta.
10. This Court while coming into such conclusion considered that this case is purely civil in nature and quashment of the same shall not have any impact on the society,
11. Accordingly, this petition is disposed by setting aside and quashing the charge sheet No.272/2016 dated 31.12.2016 and criminal proceeding vide GR Case No.5400/2016 arising out of Sorbhog PS Case No.292/2016 under sections 406/506 IPC pending before the CJM, Barpeta.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant