High Court of Meghalaya
Shri Tenzin Norbu Lhopa vs . State Of Meghalaya & 2 Ors. on 25 October, 2022
Serial No. 02
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl. Petn. No. 52 of 2022
Date of Order: 25.10.2022
Shri Tenzin Norbu Lhopa Vs. State of Meghalaya & 2 Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. G. Yobin, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Abraham, 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. Heard Mr. G. Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioners who has
submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court with this application
under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking indulgence of this Court for exercise of its
inherent power to put to rest the dispute between the parties.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 13.12.2017, the petitioner No.1 and
the son of petitioner No.2 herein who are class mates and friends have decided
to visit the family home of the son of petitioner No.2. Accordingly, they
proceeded on a motor bike ridden by petitioner No.1, at about 9:30 PM or so,
starting from Shillong. On reaching Ryndang Briew, Mawiong while
engaging a turn, the bike slides and the rider lost control of the same which
resulted in both the rider and the pillion to fall on the ground. The pillion rider
who was the son of petitioner No.2 hit his head on the road and received
grievous injury. Petitioner No.1 immediately called the 108/EMRI services
and the injured was shifted to Civil Hospital, Shillong, but unfortunately he
succumbed to his injuries.
3. The police party came and investigated into the matter and has also
impress upon petitioner No.2 who is the father of the deceased to lodge an
FIR as regard the incident as it was a formality for the police to proceed
accordingly.
4. The petitioner No.2 thereafter was compelled to file the FIR and
accordingly based on the same, Mawlai PS Case No. 81(12) 2017 was
registered and investigated into. The Investigating Officer then filed the
charge sheet finding that a prima facie case is well established against the
petitioner No.1/accused under Section 279/338/304A IPC and petitioner No.1
was made to stand trial in GR Case No. 120(A) 2019. The learned court has
yet to frame the charge against petitioner No.1/accused but he was issued with
a summon to appear before the said court.
5. In the meantime, the parties on account of their association and
friendship, have found that there is no malafide intention on the part of the
petitioner No.1 for the accident which had taken place and it was definitely
not the fault of the petitioner No.1 but a pure case of motor vehicle accident.
Accordingly, the parties have decided to compromise and settle the matter
amicably for which a compromise deed was executed on 28th September 2022,
on the fact that the first party therein who is the complainant/petitioner No.2
has clearly indicated that the accident was not due to the negligence of the
second party/petitioner No.1 but was purely an accident and that the deceased
son being a good friend of petitioner No.2 to maintain the relationship
between the parties, there is no purpose for the Criminal case to proceed.
6. Petitioner No.2/first party has also expressed his lack of interest to
proceed with the case. It is on the basis of this Deed of Compromise that the
petitioner No.1 has approached this Court with a prayer to pass necessary
orders in the same.
7. Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA though not disputing the facts of the case
has however submitted that the trial court may be allowed to pass necessary
order on the said Deed of Compromise after which the petitioner or petitioner
No.1 for that matter, may take necessary steps even to approach this Court.
8. This Court having given due consideration to the submissions made, the
facts of the case being enumerated above, what is required to be decided is
whether the parties can be allowed to compromise in this matter.
9. Admittedly facts would bear witness that the incident was on account
of an accident which prima facie does not indicate any foul or ill motive or
intention on the part of petitioner No.1. For the matter to proceed against
petitioner No.1, it would be a travesty of justice and unnecessary burden on
him inasmuch as, being a young person and pursuing his career an indictment
made by the court of law, would affect him. The petitioner No.2 has very
candidly stated that he suspects no foul play in this whole episode and also
has confirmed his affinity to the petitioner No.1 and would like to maintain
that relationship even if he has lost his son.
10. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court in a
case similar to the facts and circumstances herein, that is in Crl. Petn. No. 20
of 2022, has vide order dated 13.07.2022 allowed the prayer of the petitioner
therein and has also relied on the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of
Punjab & Anr:(2014) 6 SCC 466, particularly at para 29.1 and 29.2, in which
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case of a compromise and
settlement between the parties for ends of justice, the High Court may allow
the prayer of the parties for closure of the dispute between them.
11. Accordingly, this Court in this particular case has thought it fit and
proper to allow the prayer of the petitioner finding that the settlement and
compromise arrived at between the parties is made bonafide.
12. In the final analysis, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed for ends of
justice and the proceedings in GR Case No.120 (A) of 2019 is hereby quashed.
13. Bail bond if any, as regard the petitioner is hereby discharged.
14. Petition disposed of. No costs.
Judge
Meghalaya
25.10.2022
"N.Swer, Stenographer"
