Meghalaya High Court
Shri Nail Nolianson Khongwir vs . State Of Meghalaya & Anr. on 25 November, 2021
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No. 21
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl. Petn. No. 65 of 2021
Date of Decision: 25.11.2021
Shri Nail Nolianson Khongwir 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. An FIR dated 05.08.2019 was lodged before the Officer In-Charge Sadar Traffic Branch, Shillong by one Shri Santosh Kr. Rai informing the police that a motor vehicle accident occurred on 03.08.2019 at about 7:45 PM or so at the Golf Club, Shillong where his younger brother Master Sagar Kr. Rai aged about 12 years was knocked down by a motor bike bearing registration No. ML05 R-3575, its driver being Shri Nail Nolianson Khongwir. As a result of the said accident, the victim suffered multiple injuries and fractures on his body and was admitted at Super Care Hospital in a critical stage.
2. On receipt of the said FIR, Sadar PS Case No. 166(8) of 2019 u/s 279/337/338 IPC was duly registered. In course of investigation, a prima facie case u/s 279/337/338 IPC was found well established against the accused person Shri Nail Nolianson Khongwir and the matter was forwarded 1 to the competent court of jurisdiction for trial. Accordingly, a criminal case being GR Case No. 354(A)2019 was registered and the matter is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Shillong. The stage of the case is for framing of charge.
3. In the meantime, the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 herein have come to an understanding and compromise amongst themselves and has agreed to settle the matter amicably on the assurance of the Petitioner to settle all the expenses for the treatment of the injured. It may be mentioned that the injured was subsequently discharged from the hospital on 02.09.2019 and all the expenses amounting to ₹ 3,32,443/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty two thousand four hundred and forty three) only was settled by the Petitioner herein. The copy of the compromise deed mentioned above is annexed with this petition as Annexure-5.
4. The Petitioner has then approached this Court with an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 05.08.2019 and/or to quash the proceedings in the said GR Case No. 354(A)2019.
5. Heard Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the Petitioner who has stated that on facts as stated above, it is apparent that the proceedings of the said GR Case No. 354(A)2019 may be quashed solely on the ground that the parties have come to an understanding and have reached a compromise and therefore, there is no justification for continuation of the same. The Complainant/Respondent 2 is also no longer interested in pursuing the matter.
6. It is also submitted that the dispute essentially involves two private parties and has no implication on the interest of society at large, infact the compromise affected between the parties would create a spirit of peace and harmony, which will have a positive impact on society. Therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of the inherent power of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
7. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has 2 cited the following cases:
(i) Narinder Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab and Anr: (2014) 6 SCC 466;
(ii) Shri Derek Randall Jyrwa v. State of Meghalaya & Anr: Crl.
Petn. No.23 of 2019;
(iii) Shri Teilang Nongrum v. State of Meghalaya & Anr: Crl.
Petn. No. 14 of 2020 and
(iv) Shri Basandorlang Thangkhiew v. State of Meghalaya & Anr:
2021 SCC Online Megh 68.
8. It is submitted that in the case of Narinder Singh(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles and guidelines for quashing of an FIR on the basis of settlement between the parties. Paragraph 29.2 of the said judgment has been quoted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this regard. It is also submitted that this Court relying on the decision of the Narinder Singh case has passed suitable orders in the other cases cited above.
9. The learned counsel has also specifically referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Basandorlang Thangkhiew(supra) and has submitted that under similar facts and circumstances the said decision was reached which would also cover the facts and circumstances of this instant case.
10. Finally, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has stated that this Court may be pleased to allow this petition and to quash the proceeding in the said GR Case No. 354(A)2019.
11. Mr. D.K. Warjri, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has submitted that it is a fact that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2/Complainant have compromise in the matter having breached a settlement as indicated therein and as such, it would be futile to proceed with the said GR Case No. 354(A)2019.
312. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. Sr. GA has submitted that since the parties involved has compromise in the matter, the expenses incurred by the injured has been paid, it is therefore futile for the said GR Case No. 354(A)2019 to continue.
13. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the averments made in this petition as well as the annexures appended thereto, the facts as stated is duly acknowledged.
14. Section 482 Cr.PC reads as follows:-
"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
15. This section deals with the exercise of the power of the Court to essentially prevent abuse of the process of the court, to give effect to an order under the Code and to secure the ends of justice. This power can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the applicant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. In the case involving the Petitioner, the charges against him is one u/s 279/337/338 IPC out of which Section 279 is non-compoundable and as such, the Trial Court would not be equipped to grant the prayer of the parties, if so petitioned as one of the sections as mentioned above is non-compoundable.
16. The remedy to the party/parties would only be to approach the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C as was done in this instant case.
17. In the case of Narinder Singh(supra) cited by the Petitioner at paragraph 29.1 and 29.2 of the same, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:-
"29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the 4 matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
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."
18. Again, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly a motor vehicle accident had occurred involving the Petitioner and the said brother of Respondent No. 2 and as stated the expenses for the treatment of the injured has been borne by the Petitioner for which the parties have amicably reached a compromise in this regard, therefore to secure the ends of justice, which in the opinion of this Court has already been affected by the said compromise deed, there is no bar for this Court to exercise its inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C to bring an end to the proceedings involving the parties herein.
19. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings of GR Case No. 354(A)2019 are hereby set aside and quashed. Bail bond executed by the Petitioner/accused if any, stands discharged.
20. The learned Magistrate First Class, Shillong trying the said case is hereby directed to pass necessary orders in this connection.
21. With the above, this petition is hereby disposed. No order as to cost.
Judge Meghalaya 25.11.2021 "N. Swer, Stenographer"
5