Ranjeet Singh And Anr.Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1835 Gua

                                                                          Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010055202022




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

                         PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
                         Criminal Petition No. 235 of 2022


     1. RANJEET SINGH AND ANR.SON OF LATE SAR KRIPAL SINGH
        R/O C-583/ 3RD FLOOR, VIKAS PURI, P.S. VIKAS PURI, P.O. VIKAS PURI,
        NEW DELHI, DIST. WEST DELHI, PIN-110018


     2: SRI SUMIT MARWAH
     S/O MR. V K MARWAH
     PRESENTLY ADDRESS- FLAT NO. 806
     INDRAPRASTHA APARTMENTS
     JAYANAGAR
     GUWAHATI

                              ................Petitioners




           VERSUS


     1. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
        REPRESENTED. BY THE PP, ASSAM


     2. SRI AMITAV CHAKRABORTY
        S/O LATE ASHUTOSH CHAKRABORTY
        R/O HOUSE NO. 9
        GANDHINAGAR
        SATGAON
        GUWAHATI
                                                                                    Page No.# 2/6

          P.S. SATGAON
          P.O. UDAYAN VIHAR
          DIST. KAMRUP (METRO)
          ASSAM
          PIN-781171
                                                                      ...............Respondents

Advocates for the petitioner       :    Mr T Deuri
Advocate for the respondent        :    Mr B Sarma, Addl. P.P.
                                         Md S M Rahman, R-2.


                                           BEFORE
                        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI


Date of Judgment                   :    09.05.2023


                               JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr T Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr S M Rahman, learned

counsel for the respondent No. 2. Also heard Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Assam/respondent No. 1.

2. Both the petitioners have filed an application under Section 482 CrPC, seeking

quashment of the First Information Report dated 06.12.2021, being registered as Dispur PS

Case No. 4366/2021, under Sections 406/420/509 IPC.

3. Both the accused petitioners are serving with the Indus Towers Limited Company,

located at Gurugram, Haryana. The opposite party No. 2, i.e., the informant was serving in

the post of Circle Supply Head Chain Manager-NESA Circle Office of Indus Towers Limited.

According to the accused petitioners, some inputs were received with respect to the

involvement of opposite party No. 2/informant in certain irregularities/illegal practices, which Page No.# 3/6

were not in line with the code of conduct applicable to all the employees of the company. The

opposite party No. 2 was called upon on 23.11.2021 to discuss the inputs received against

him, but he did not respond, however, sent an e-mail, stating that he was not feeling well and

was going for medical check-up. Further, on the same day, the opposite party No. 2 had sent

another e-mail, stating that he was applying for medical leave for 10 days.

4. On 10.12.2021, the accused petitioner No. 2 had sent an e-mail to respondent No. 1 to

know about his whereabouts and he should share his coordinates. But no reply has been

received from the respondent No. 2. Ultimately, on 17.12.2021, it was decided that due to the

unwarranted conduct of the opposite party No. 2, the company has lost trust and confidence

upon him and accordingly, a letter was issued for his termination.

5. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 had filed a Title Suit, being Title Suit

No. 421/2021, before the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup, Guwhati, praying for

permanent injunction, with a declaration that his termination vide order dated 17.12.2021 is

void and illegal. Subsequently, the FIR was lodged against the present petitioners by the

respondent No. 2, alleging that his official e-mail id and his g-mail-id were hacked and was

mis-utilized fraudulently by the accused petitioners.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the facts disclosed in the

First Information Report dated 06.12.2021 do not prima facie make out the ingredients of

offence under Sections 406/420/509 IPC. As such, the impugned FIR is liable to be set aside

and quashed.

7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter has

been settled between the parties and all the offences alleged against the accused petitioners Page No.# 4/6

are compoundable in nature. Hence, the impugned FIR may be quashed accordingly.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 also submitted in the same

tune by stating that respondent No. 2 is not interested to proceed further with the case. It is

also stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the offence under

Sections 406/420/509 IPC are compoundable in nature. The respondent No. 2 has no

objection if the FIR is quashed.

7. However, Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has made no objection on

the prayer of the parties.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have

also perused the documents annexed with the record.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the matter has been amicably

settled between the parties. 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.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. -

Vs- Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 69, 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 Page No.# 5/6

proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.

11. In the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another;

reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceeding

on the ground of compromise between the parties.

12. In another case titled Ramgopal & Other v. State of MP; reported in Criminal

Appeal Nos. 1489 and 1488 of 2012 (MANU/SC/0728/2021), 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

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 Page No.# 6/6

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

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

13. Therefore, from the judgments of the Apex Court, law is fairly settled now that this

court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings on the ground of compromise

arrived at between both the parties.

14. The law is also well settled that if the dispute is private in nature and does not affect

the public at large then even criminal proceedings 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.

15. In the instant case, the offences as alleged, are compoundable in nature and the

dispute between the parties appear to be private in nature, which arises out of

misunderstanding between the parties and both the parties have subsequently settled their

dispute.

16. In the result, petition is allowed. The FIR being Dispur PS Case No. 4366/2021, under

Sections 406/420/509, is hereby quashed and set aside.

17. The Criminal Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant