Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam
2021 Latest Caselaw 544 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010024162021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.Pet./85/2021

            PRANAB KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR
            S/O KABINDRA NATH SHARMA, R/O PALM ENLAVE, BELTOLA, P.O.
            BELTOLA P.S HATIGAON, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM


            2: MARY DAS
            W/O PRANAB KUMAR SHARMA
             D/O LT. SATISH DAS
             R/O MONORANJAN AMBIENCE
             501(A) 5TH FLOOR BLOCK B
             BY LANE 2
             NEW GUWAHATI TINIALI
             GANESH MANDIR PATH GUWAHATI-781020 R/O PALM ENLAVE
             BELTOLA
             P.O. BELTOLA P.S HATIGAON
             GUWAHATI
             DIST. KAMRUP (M)
            ASSAM


            VERSUS


            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A K BHUYAN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

Page No.# 2/3

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

17-02-2021

Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel assisted by Mr. A. Khound, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State Respondent.

This is a joint petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of the FIR in Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.765/2020 registered under Section 294(a)/498A of the Indian Penal Code.

I have perused the petition. The petition is filed by the informant/wife i.e. petitioner No.2 and her husband/accused petitioner No.1. On a perusal of the application, it is found that the dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature and, in paragraph -5 of the petition, it has specifically been stated by the parties that the aforesaid case is the outcome of misunderstanding between them. This Court is of the view that the petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.765/2020 has been filed by both the parties and the same is supported by an affidavit as regards the contents thereof.

Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 particularly paragraph-14 (29.4) thereof, which reads as under :

"14. .........

29.4 On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves."

On the other hand, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph-61, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that- " the High Court Page No.# 3/3

may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.".

The petitioner No.2 is the wife/informant, who had lodged the FIR in the aforesaid police case against her husband/petitioner No.2. Now, she has settled the matter with her husband/petitioner No.1 and she is unlikely to lead any evidence against him and, therefore, the case is unlikely to result in conviction.

Taking into account the ratio in both the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, this Court is of the view that continuance of the proceedings in the aforesaid Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.765/2020 will be an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, is quashed.

The criminal petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant