Crl.Pet./166/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 4379 Gua

                                                                            Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010038312022




                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
            (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

                                PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI


                                    Crl. Pet. No. 166/2022


             Riaz Uddin @ Riaz Uddin Ahmed,
             S/o Late Abdus Salam,
             R/o: Lailuri,
             P.S.- Rupahihat,
             District:- Nagaon (Assam)
             .

..................Petitioner

-Versus-

1. State of Assam, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. Hanufa Khatun, aged about 54 years W/o Late Omar Ali, R/o Suto Rupahi, P.S.- Nagaon, District: - Nagaon (Assam).

                                                             ...............Respondent
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/10



Advocates for the appellant        :     Mr A Ahmed
Advocate for the respondent        :     Mr B Sarma, APP.


                                           BEFORE
                        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI


Date of hearing and Judgment : 11.11.2022



                              JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr A Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr B Sarma,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State of Assam/respondent

No. 1.

2. The petitioner has preferred an application under Section 482 CrPC, for quashing of FIR

being Nagaon PS Case No. 2135/21, registered under Sections 420/406/384/294/506/468/34

IPC, on the ground of compromise between the parties.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No. 2 lodged one ejahar on

04.09.2021, stating inter alia that the present petitioner is a Constable in the Assam Police. In

the month of January, 2015, the present petitioner along with two other persons visited their

house and told them that they had good contact with superior authority. They allured her and

her husband that they had arranged jobs for many others and thereby they asked for Rs.

3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) Only, with an assurance to arrange a job within 6 months by

any means, and if they failed to assure job, then they promised to return the entire amount.

Initially, they did not believe them but due to repeated persuasion, and false assurance to

arrange money, they started believing them. On 02.04.2015, the present petitioner came to Page No.# 3/10

their house and on bona fide belief, her husband handed over Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One

Lac Fifty Thousand) only to the present petitioner and thereafter, on 09.04.2015, the accused

petitioner along with other persons came to their house and took away Rs. 1, 25,000/-

(Rupees One LakhTwenty Five Thousand) Only from her husband, in her presence. The

accused persons assured to arrange job for her son, Abdul Rouf and took a total amount of

Rs. 2,75,000/-. The present petitioner also told that he would give in writing that he had

borrowed the money as loan. They believed the assurance given by the accused person with

a hope to get a job for her son and thereafter, the present petitioner wrote in a stamp paper

that he took loan of Rs. 1,75,000/- and the same would be returned on or before 04.10.2015,

but the petitioner and his associates failed to provide any job for her son and the money has

also not been returned to the informant.

4. On receipt of the FIR a case was registered as Nagaon PS Case No. 2135/21, under

Sections 420/406/384/294/506/468/34 IPC

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as a Constable

in Assam Police. Though the FIR was lodged against the present petitioner along with two

other accused persons, but subsequently, the mater has been compromised between the

parties. No fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the said criminal proceeding.

6. It is also the submission of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the case.

The actual fact of the case is that the petitioner is constable working in the Assam Police. The

petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- from the informant's husband to

purchase a plot of land and in this regard, he had given one hand-note to the husband of the

informant. The petitioner was regularly paying the interest of the borrowed amount till the Page No.# 4/10

husband of the informant died and also paid an amount of Rs. 45,000/- from the principal

amount. The informant started demanding entire amount within short date from the

petitioner, after death of her husband, due to which some misunderstanding had cropped up

and the informant lodged the FIR. After lodging of the FIR, both the parties settled their

disputes and accordingly, the petitioner returned the entire borrowed amount to the

respondent No. 2. After receiving the said amount, the respondent No. 2 executed one

money receipt and sworn a declaration by stating that she received the entire amount, which

was given to the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the dispute between the parties

is civil in nature, which was given the colour of a criminal case. In view of the allegations

made in the FIR and the settlement arrived at between the parties as well as considering the

provision of Section 320 CrPC, this Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482

CrPC, to quash the impugned FIR.

8. It is further submitted that there is no chance of conviction and therefore the present

FIR may be quashed in terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in the

case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. -V- Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre,

reported in (1988) 1 SCC 69, wherein it was held that while exercising the inherent power

of quashing under Section 482 CrPC, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any

special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in

the interest of justice, to permit a prosecution to continue. Where in the opinion of the Court,

the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be

served, by allowing a criminal proceeding to continue, the Court may while taking into

consideration of the special facts of the case, also quash the proceeding even though it may Page No.# 5/10

be at a preliminary stage.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to another case, Nikhil Merchant v.

Central Bureau of Investigation & Another; reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceeding on the ground of compromise

between the parties.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited another case law i.e., Mitesh Kumar J

Shah v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2021 SC 5298, and observed as follows:-

"Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its

disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to

take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in

contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the

process of law, which must be discouraged in its entirety."

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision rendered in the

case of Ramgopal & Other v. State of MP; reported in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1489 and

1488 of 2012 (MANU/SC/0728/2021), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that -

"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

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 had managed with the Page No.# 6/10

complainant to enter into a compromise.

The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of offence and

the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has

willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash

such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers, under Section 482

CrPC, even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can

indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the

body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure

that the felony, even if goes unpunished does not tinker with or paralyze

the very object of the administration of criminal justice system."

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that

the money has been paid by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 has received the same.

As such the respondent No. 2 has no objection, if the criminal proceeding against the present

petitioner is quashed.

13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted in the same tune.

12. Coming to the present case, it reveals from the record that in support of the fact of

compromise, the respondent No. 2 has submitted one agreement executed between the

petitioner and the husband of respondent No. 2, Omar Ali, by stating that as the petitioner

was having close relation with the second party and due to the said relationship, the present

petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- for urgent need to purchase a plot of land

and again on 09.04.2015, took an amount of Rs. 25,000/-.

14. It also appears from the record that the respondent No. 2 also sworn an affidavit by Page No.# 7/10

stating that the accused Riyaz Uddin , i.e., the present petitioner took an amount 1,75,.000

from her deceased husband, Omar Ali, as loan with a promise to repay the said loan amount,

but after the death of her husband, she demanded the said money from the present

petitioner and due to such non-payment of loan, she lodged the FIR, but subsequently, the

present petitioner has paid the full amount of Rs. 1,75,000/-, which he had taken from her

husband. She had received the said amount by executing a money receipt dated 02.10.2021.

As the money has been paid by the present petitioner, she is further not interested to proceed

with the case against the present petitioner.

15. One money receipt is also available in the record, executed by the respondent No. 2,

Hanufa Khatun in presence of three witnesses, by stating that she received an amount of Rs.

1,75,000/- from Riyajuddin, i.e, the present petitioner, which was given by the petitioner to

Riyajuddin on 09.04.2015. She executed a money receipt on 2 nd day October, 2021, in

presence of the witnesses. She has no any claim against said Riyajuddin Ahmed and another.

16. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent

No. 2 as well as Additional P P. It appears from the record as well as from the FIR that there

was a monetary transaction between the husband of respondent No. 2 and the present

petitioner along with two other persons, mentioned in the FIR. Whether the money has been

paid by the husband of the respondent No. 2, under duress or under compulsion, it cannot be

taken into consideration in the present proceeding. However, it is true that the present

petitioner took the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- from the husband of the respondent No. 2, and

as the money has not been paid in time, the FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 2.

Subsequently, the petitioner has paid the entire amount to respondent No. 2, as a result of Page No.# 8/10

which, the matter has been settled between the parties and accordingly, the respondent No.

2 has made a declaration that she is not interested to proceed with the case.

17. Admittedly, the case was registered under Sections 420/406/384/294/506/468/34 IPC.

The offence under Sections 468/384/294 are non-compoundable but as the dispute between

the parties are private in nature and the parties have amicably settled their dispute,

therefore, in non-compoundable offences, the proceeding can be quashed by this Court.

18. In the case of State of MP -vs- Laxminarayan; reported in & AIR 2019 SC

1290, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed and considered the power of this Court in

respect of quashing of non compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed

between the parties and observed as follows:-

"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:

(i) 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;

(ii) 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;

Page No.# 9/10

(iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under

the special statutes like 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;

(iv) 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 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."

19. Therefore, from the judgments of the Apex Court, law is fairly settled now that even in

cases which relates to non-compoundable offences this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can

quash the proceedings in terms of compromise executed between both the parties.

20. Therefore, the law is well settled that if the dispute is private in nature and does not

affect the public at large then even criminal proceeding for non-compoundable offences on

the basis of compromise can be quashed by this Court while exercising the power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

21. In the instant case, the dispute between the parties appear to be private in nature,

which arises out of monetary transaction and both the parties have amicably settled their Page No.# 10/10

dispute and the documents of compromise executed between the parties are annexed with

the record.

22. In the result, petition is allowed. The FIR being Nagaon PS Case No. 2135/21, under

Sections 420/406/384/294/506/468/34 IPC is hereby quashed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant