Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam
2024 Latest Caselaw 6416 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 30 September, 2024

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                         Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010204032024




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

                         Case No. : Crl.Pet./1214/2024

         NAYAN BORO AND 6 ORS
         S/O DIJEN BORO
         R/O SITA KATAMUR
         CHANGSARI DIST.KAMRUP, ASSAM

         2: DEEP JYOTI BORO
          S/O LAHENDRA BORO
         R/O SHILAKARAYBARI
         CHANGSARI
         DIST.KAMRUP
         ASSAM

         3: NAYAN MONI LAHKAR
          S/O MANTU LAHAKAR
         R/O SILA HALOGURI CHOWK

         CHANGSARI
         DIST. KAMRUP
         ASSAM

         4: RAKESH BORO
          S/O DASHANAN BORO
         R/O SONAPUR TEPESIA
          NAZIRAKHAT
         DIST. KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM

         5: SUMIL MANAR
          S/O DURGI MANAR
         R/O PAHAMKANCHOH
         KHANAPARA
          RI BHOI

         BYNIHAT
                                                                             Page No.# 2/6

              MEGHALAYA.

             6: JATIN KOCH NONGRUM
              S/O GOPAL KOCH
             R/O KHANAPARA HIGHWAY
             RI BHOI

             BYRNIHAT
             MEGHALAYA.

             7: BIBEKJYOTI DAS
              S/O BIMAL JYOTI DAS
             R/O 9TH MILE

             HASTINAPUR

             DIST. KAMRUP (M)
             ASSA

             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REPRESENTED BY THE PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. R CHOUDHURY, MS. B. HAZARIKA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                      :: BEFORE ::
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                       O R D E R

30.09.2024

Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State.

Page No.# 3/6

2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the FIR dated 14.09.2024 in respect of Basistha P.S. Case No.667/2024 registered under Sections 127(1)/296(b)/117(2)/115(2)/125/324(4)/324(5)/3(5) of BNS, 2023.

3. The petitioner Nayan Boro had lodged an FIR before police on 14.09.2024. In that FIR, he has alleged that on that day at about 3. A.M. in the morning, while he was coming from Khanapara side towards 8 Mile Petrol Pump, one white I20 Car bearing Registration No.AS-01-BW-5353 overtook him and the occupants of the said car uttered abusive languages towards the informant and also hit his car. When the informant reached the 8 Mile Ganesh Mandir, the said car appeared again and 4/5 boys from that car came out and attacked the car of the informant with sharp weapons. In that incident, Dipjyoti Boro who was travelling with the informant, sustained injuries on his eyes. Those boys also attacked the informant and another passenger namely, Nayan Laskar who was also travelling in the car of the informant. The informant got cut injuries on his face and head and Deepjyoti Boro sustained injuries on his shoulder and legs. Those boys coming from the white car threw stones at the car of the informant. As a result of which, the front windshield was badly damaged. The informant and his friends somehow managed to escape.

4. Police investigation is going on.

5. The petitioner, the aforementioned Dipjyoti Boro and Nayan Laskar along with the boys coming in the white I20 Car have come together to this court by filing the present petition. They have stated that the entire incident took place because of misunderstanding of facts when the white car overtook the car of the informant. They have claimed that they have amicably settled the dispute between themselves and therefore, they have no intention to proceed further with the case. All of them have prayed before this Court that the FIR should be quashed.

6. Ms. Choudhury has relied the upon the ration laid down by the Hon'be Supreme Page No.# 4/6

Court in Gian Singh vs. The State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 . Paragraph 61 of the said judgment is quoted as under:

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus :

the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : ( i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, 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 or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding 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."

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

8. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , AIR Page No.# 5/6

1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

9. Reverting to the case in hand, I find that under the given circumstances of the case, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. So, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the Page No.# 6/6

process of the court.

10. This Court is the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The criminal petition is allowed.

11. Accordingly, the FIR dated 14.09.2024 in respect of Basistha P.S. Case No.667/2024 registered under Sections 127(1)/ 296(b)/ 117(2)/115(2)/125/324(4)/324(5)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, is quashed and set aside.

The criminal petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant