Nur Nashib Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 118 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Nur Nashib Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 9 January, 2024

Author: Malasri Nandi

Bench: Malasri Nandi

                                                                              Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010208182023




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

                               Case No. : Crl.Pet./992/2023

            NUR NASHIB AHMED
            S/O LT. ABDUL HAMID VILL- KHOLABANDHA, P.O. KHOLABANDHA
            P.S. KACHUMARA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781127



            VERSUS

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

            2:DIPALI RABHA
             W/O LT. SARAT RABHA
            VILL- PUB TURUKPARA
             P.O. BOKO
            P.S. BOKO
            DIST. KAMRUP
            ASSAM
            PIN-78112

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS J HAZARIKA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P S LAHKAR(ADDL.PP, ASSAM)




                                  BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

                                        JUDGMENT

Date : 09-01-2024

Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl.Public prosecutor for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Ms. M. Page No.# 2/5

Khatun, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The present petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed for quashing of impugned FIR as well as charge sheet under Section 279 /304-A of the IPC pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup at Boko.

3. The allegation in the instant case is that the informant/ respondent No. 2 had lodged an FIR at Boko Police Station alleging inter-alia that on 26.03.2022 at

about 2.30 pm, while the husband of the informant/respondent No.2 was proceeding towards Pub- Turukpara on foot, at that time, the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS- 15-A-7281 coming in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the husband of the informant/respondent No.2 and as a result of which, the husband of the informant/respondent No.2 died on the same day. Accordingly, a case was registered vide Boko PS Case No. 148/2022 under section 279/304 A IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had also sustained grievous injuries due to the alleged accident. The matter has been settled between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 with the intervention of members of their respective families. Pursuant to the said settlement, the respondent No.2 was paid some amount. It is also submitted that parties have entered into the agreement voluntary on their own free will and without any pressure, coercion, undue influence or duress of any nature. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has cited a case law in The State of Madhya Pradesh v-s Laxmi Narayan and ors. reported in Criminal Petition No. 349/2019 .

5. The respondent No.2 also filed an affidavit by stating that though she had lodged the FIR on the death of her husband but subsequently, the matter has been settled between her and petitioner amicably. Though she had approached the Officer- in-charge of Boko P.S with a prayer to withdraw the said FIR, but the Officer -in-

Page No.# 3/5

charge had declined to withdraw the said FIR and police also submitted charge sheet against the petitioner pending in the court of learned JMFC, Kamrup at Boko. According to the respondent No.2, she along with the accused petitioner had already amicably settled the matter and as such, she has no any objection in the event of quashing of FIR and proceeding in PRC case No.504/2022 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Kamrup at Boko.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

7. In PRC Case No. 504/2022, charge sheet was submitted against the present petitioner under Sections 279/304-A IPC and both the offences are non- compoundable.

8. It is well settled that High Court in exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC can compound the offence which are not compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and complainant. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for the High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings.

9. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. -vs-State of Punjab & anr. reported in (2014)6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"29 . In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2 When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

Page No.# 4/5

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3 Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute 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. 29.4 On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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.

29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. "

10. Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & ors -vs- State of Gujarat reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

" 16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :

16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; 16.2 The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3 In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

16.4 While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; 16.5 The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

Page No.# 5/5

16.7 As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16.8 Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; 16.9 In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal proposition as well as nature of allegation, settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court feels that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the court .

12. In view of the above, the impugned FIR in Boko PS Case No. 148/2022 and all consequential proceedings in PRC Case No.504/2022 under Sections 279/304-A IPC pending in the court of JMFC, Kamrup at Boko is hereby quashed.

The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant