Shri. Kuldeep Singh & 2 Ors. vs . The State Of Meghalaya & Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 582 Meg

      Serial No. 01
      Regular List


                         HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                                AT SHILLONG

Crl. Petn. No. 40 of 2022
                                                 Date of Decision: 12.10.2022
Shri. Kuldeep Singh & 2 Ors.          Vs.     The State of Meghalaya & Anr.
Coram:
              Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)   : Mr. S. Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s)             : Mr. H. Abraham, GA with

Ms. A. Thungwa, GA

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.:

ii)     Whether approved for publication
        in press:                                         Yes/No

                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to

quash the proceedings of G.R Case No. 89(S) of 2018 and GR Case No. 84(S)

of 2019 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class

(JMFC) at Shillong.

2. On perusal of the petition, what could be understood is that an

incident which occurred on 01.07.2018 in which some boys were playing

cricket and in the process, the ball landed on the terrace of the residential

quarter of the petitioner No. 1 herein and while the said boys were trying to

retrieve the ball, facing resistance from the petitioner No. 1 and his son who

refused to open the door of the terrace, an altercation took place as a result of

which some of the persons involved suffered injuries on their person. This led

to the filing of an FIR dated 01.07.2018 by the petitioner No. 2 herein which

was registered as Shillong Sadar P.S Case No. 139 (07) 2018 under Sections

506/323/324/34 IPC against Shri. Kuldeep Singh (petitioner No. 1) and his son

Gurjeet Singh as well as their neighbour Shri. Gurmeet Singh who were

arrested and subsequently released on bail.

3. A counter FIR was filed by Shri. Gurjeet Singh, the son of the

petitioner No. 1 on the same day that is, on 01.07.2018 against Shri. Santosh

Kumar Rai, Shri. Dilip Kumar Rai and Shri. Pankaj Kumar Rai resulting in

registration of a criminal case being Shillong Sadar P.S Case No. 140 (07) of

2018 under Sections 295A/447/323/324/34 IPC and the arrest of the

abovementioned accused who were also subsequently enlarged on bail.

4. After completion of the investigation in connection with Shillong

Sadar P.S Case No. 139 (07) 2018 under Sections 506/323/324/34 IPC, the

Investigating Officer (I/O) has filed a charge sheet with the findings that there

is prima facie evidence against the petitioner No. 1 and his son, Gurjeet Singh

while Shri. Gurmeet Singh was discharged from the liabilities of the case due

to insufficient evidence.

5. Accordingly, the matter went to trial in G.R Case No. 89(S) of 2018.

The learned JMFC, Shillong then framed the charges against the accused

person and charges were framed against Shri. Gurjeet Singh under Section 323

IPC and against Kuldeep Singh (petitioner No. 1) under Section 324 IPC.

6. In course of trial, the complainant Shri. Ganesh Rai (petitioner No.

3) had filed an application seeking compounding the offence against Shri.

Gurjeet Singh under Section 320 Cr.PC which was allowed by the Court and

the said Gurjeet Singh was subsequently discharged from all liabilities in the

case. The case is now at the stage of recording of evidence of prosecution

witnesses.

7. As regard the other case, that is, Shillong Sadar P.S Case No.

140(07) of 2018 under Sections 295A/447/323/324/34 IPC, here too, after

completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and taken cognizance

of by the Court in which G.R Case No. 84(S) of 2019 was registered and the

same was endorsed to the learned JMFC, Shillong for disposal. This case is at

the stage of consideration of charges.

8. In the meantime, the parties involved have come together,

particularly under the aegis of the Keating Road Welfare Organisation

(KRWO), Shillong and in a meeting called by the said organization on

05.08.2018 where all the parties involved in the cases mentioned above were

present, better sense prevailed and a compromise and amicable settlement was

arrived at between the parties.

9. The parties in their individual capacity then approached the learned

Trial Court with a prayer for compounding of the offences on the basis of the

compromise reached, however since the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to pass

any effective order in this regard, as some of the sections of law involved are

non-compoundable, therefore having no other option, the parties have jointly

filed this present petition before this Court with the prayer as aforesaid.

10. Mr. S. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that

on the initiative of the KRWO, the parties have thought it fit and proper to

settle the matter amicably among themselves and have therefore thought it fit

that continuation of proceedings in both related cases would not serve any

useful purpose under the circumstances.

11. It is also submitted that the offences involved are not grave or severe

since, if convicted, the maximum punishment could only be three years and

since the parties have thought it fit to settle the matter among themselves, the

interest of the society at large would not be affected.

12. That the matter could have been resolved before the Trial Court

itself, but for the fact that some sections are non-compoundable for which the

Trial Court could not exercise jurisdiction to pass any effective order in this

regard, therefore, the parties have accordingly approached this Court with a

prayer for exercise of its inherent power to secure ends of justice.

13. It is further submitted that the parties involved have also filed their

individual affidavit before this Court testifying to the fact that they have come

to a compromise and amicable settlement as regard the dispute which is the

subject matter of the aforesaid G.R cases and as such, this Court may be

pleased to allow this petition and to direct the proceedings in the said G.R

cases to be quashed.

14. Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA has not made any objection to the

prayer of the petitioners in this petition, but has submitted that a perusal of the

affidavit filed by the petitioners herein wherein the terms of the compromise

has been enumerated would show that the said compromise is conditional and

was made in the future tense and as such, the same could not be considered a

proper compromise in its true sense.

15. It is also submitted that the parties may be directed to participate in

the trial and to depose before the Trial Court in whatever form they wish to do

so and in the final analysis if there is no credible evidence against the accused

therein, they will be eventually discharged.

16. This Court has given due consideration to the case of the parties

and have also perused the petition and the related papers. The factual aspect

of the matter need not be repeated, the only issue that require an answer is

whether the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in their

respective cases would subserve the ends of justice or vice versa.

17. The fact that a cognizable offence has been committed for which due

process of law has to take its own course cannot be denied as far as the two

G.R cases mentioned above are concerned, however since the principal parties

to the dispute have thought it best to resolve their differences amicably,

looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to

allow the prayer made in this petition for ends of justice.

18. In matters of this kind, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, at para

29, 29.1 and 29.5 of the same has held as follows:

"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.

29.5 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."

19. In view of the observations made above, the settlement and

compromise between the parties herein is accepted. The inherent power of this

Court to quash the related proceedings in G.R Case No. 89(S) of 2018 and G.R

Case No. 84(S) of 2019 is hereby exercised affirmatively.

20. On the said G.R cases mentioned above being quashed, the

accused/petitioners are discharged of their liabilities in the case.

21. Petition disposed of. No costs.

Judge

Meghalaya 12.10.2022 "Tiprilynti-PS"