Merry Laskar vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1374 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010077112022




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

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./371/2022


            MERRY LASKAR
            W/O SRI MRIDUL KUMAR LASKAR
            R/O AJANTA PATH,
            HATIGAON, UNDER HATIGAON POLICE STATION, IN THE DIST. OF
            KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM,
            PIN-781028



            VERSUS


            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:SMTI. DHANANDA ATHPORIA
            W/O LATE JAGADISH ATHPORIA
            R/O NIJARAPARA
             KAMAKHYA COLONY
            UNDER JALUKBARI POLICE STATION

            GUWAHATI
            IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP (M)
            ASSAM
            PIN-78101

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B M CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
                                                                                 Page No.# 2/4

                                  BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                          ORDER

27.04.2022 Heard Shri BM Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, who by means of this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 05.04.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M) in CR Case No. 8341/2006 by which the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and was sentenced to undergo SI for 6 (six) months and also pay a compensation of Rs.13,98,400/- to the complainant.

2. The aforesaid judgment was the subject matter of an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 90/2013 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M). However, the said appeal was dismissed, vide judgment dated 19.06.2014. The order passed by the learned Appellate Court was put to further challenge by way of a revision in this Court in Crl.Rev.P. No. 160/2015. However, on the ground of non-prosecution, the said revision petition was dismissed, vide an order dated 17.06.2019.

3. The primary ground urged in support of the present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC is that the matter has been compromised and the complainant has been paid the amount which was settled between the parties.

4. When the matter was called upon, Shri TH Hazarika, learned counsel appearing before the Court has submitted that he has filed the power on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and has also endorsed the submissions of Shri Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been settled and he would not oppose to the prayer made in the present petition.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has held that the powers under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised for quashing of the proceedings which relate to the offences which are not heinous in nature and in which the parties have come to a settlement. While dealing with the various aspects / facets of exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines-

Page No.# 3/4

"15. 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: 15.1. 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; 15.2. 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;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the 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;

15.4. 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 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/delicate 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh 2 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. 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 impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the Page No.# 4/4

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."

6. Following the aforesaid guidelines and also taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances and the matter not falling within the offences bracketed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is rather civil in nature, this Court is of the view that a case for quashing has been made out. Accordingly, the impugned conviction made vide the order dated 05.04.2013 passed in CR Case No. 8341/2006 by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 19.06.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 90/2013 is set aside and quashed.

7. The present petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant