Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam
2021 Latest Caselaw 904 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010042762021




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

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./165/2021

            SMT. TRISHNA THAKURIA AND 2 ORS
            W/O GANESH HALDER, R/O 110, LOKNATH APARTMENT, 1 NO.,
            HARICHARAN CHATERJEE STREET, MOUSUMI MORE, ARIDAHA,
            KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700057

            2: GANESH HALDER
             S/O LATE NEPEN HALDER
             R/O 110
             LOKNATH APARTMENT
             1 NO.
             HARICHARAN CHATERJEE STREET
             MOUSUMI MORE
            ARIDAHA
             KOLKATA
            WEST BENGAL-700057

            3: SMT. SUMITRA THAKURIA
            W/O SRI DINESH THAKURIA
             R/O H. NO. 6
             B.N. THAKURIA PATH
             SANTIPUR HILL SIDE
             GUWAHATI
             KAMRUP(M)
            ASSAM-78100

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. J BHARALI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/3




                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

                                            ORDER

10-03-2021

Mr. J. Bharali, learned counsel represents the petitioner.

Mr. N.K. Kalita, leaned Additional Public Prosecutor represents the respondent.

This is a petition, made under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of the FIR lodged by the petitioner No. 3 against the petitioner No. 2, in Bharalumukh Police Station Case No. 282 of 2017, under Section 366 of the IPC.

I have perused the petition as well as annexures furnished thereto. I have also heard the learned counsel for parties as indicated above. On perusal of the FIR, on the basis of which the aforesaid case is registered, it appear that the informant Smt. Sumitra Thakuria (petitioner No. 3), Smt. Trishna Thakuria (petitioner No.

1) left the house of the informant on 03-05-2017 and thereafter, Sri Ganesh Halder (petitioner No. 2) had called the informant/petitioner No. 3 stating to her that the petitioner No. 1, Smt. Trishna Thakuria is in Kolkata with him (petitioner No. 2). Thereafter, police registered a case under Section 366 of the IPC on the basis of the FIR.

Now, the victim, Smt. Trishna Thakuria, being the petitioner No. 1, accused Ganesh Haldar, present husband of the petitioner No. 1/victim and the petitioner No. 3, the informant have filed this petition jointly stating that the matter has been settled between them amicably and the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 have now been residing as husband and wife in Kolkata. They do not want to pursue the case anymore.

Such position appearing from the petition makes it appear that in the event the case is tried, the informant/petitioner No. 3 and the victim/petitioner No. 1 are unlikely to adduce evidence against the petitioner No. 2 alleging commission of the offence alleged. Mr. Bharali, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 :

Page No.# 3/3

"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 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.".

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 Police Station Case No. 282 of 2017, under Section 366 of the IPC will be an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, is quashed.

Accordingly this petition stands disposed of to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court at this motion stage itself.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant