Page No.# 1/3 vs Indra Mohini Patar And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2716 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010198442019




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

                               Case No. : Crl.Pet./962/2019

           ABHIJIT HAZARIKA AND ANR.
           S/O- LATE RAJENDRA NATH HAZARIKA, R/O- SURYA ANAND APARTMENT,
           MILANPUR P.S- CHANDMARI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

           2: MINATI HAZARIKA
           W/O- SWAPANANIL HAZARIKA
            R/O- SURYA ANAND APARTMENT
            MILANPUR P.S- CHANDMARI
            DIST- KAMRUP (M)
           ASSA

           VERSUS

           INDRA MOHINI PATAR AND ANR.
           D/O- MR. HARESHWAR PATAR, PRESENT ADDRESS H NO. 18(A), S K GIRLS
           HOSTEL, CHENIKUTHI, P.O- SILPUKHURI, P.S- LATASIL, GUWAHATI-
           781003, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PERMANENT ADDRESS H NO. 9, TULSI
           COTTAGE, VILL BHALUKAGURI, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM

           2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY THE PP
           ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P KATAKI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM (R2)
                                                                      Page No.# 2/3


                                BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

                                     ORDER

08-11-2021

Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel represents the petitioners. Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel represents the respondent No. 1. Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor represents the State respondent No. 2.

The fact of the case, as appears from the materials placed before this Court, is that the respondent No. 1 and another lady, namely, Ms. Swarna Buragohain were residing together in a rented house in a building occupied by the petitioners at Milanpur Club Tiniali under Chandmari Police Station, Guwahati. On 18-01-2017, the respondent No. 1 and the aforesaid Ms. Swarna Buragohain returned together to the rented house at about 10.30 p.m. after shopping and found that the gate was closed. The petitioner had opened the gate. On entering, the respondent No. 1 enquired from the son of the petitioner No. 2 as to what for the gate was not opened, to which he replied that he was not the petitioners' Chowkidar. Thereafter, there had taken place heated exchanges of words and blows between the parties resulting, ultimately, in sustaining simple injuries by both the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matters have been settled amicably between the parties and petitioners do not want to pursue the case anymore.

The learned counsel for the private respondent has subscribed to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that Page No.# 3/3

the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein 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 the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, this Court is of the view that continuance of the proceedings in the aforesaid GR Case No. 690 of 2017, arising out of Chandmari Police Station Case No. 37 of 2017, under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the IPC will be an abuse

of the process of law and, therefore, is quashed.

Accordingly this petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant