High Court of Meghalaya
1.Shri Gesper Langstieh vs . 1. State Of Meghalaya, Rep. By on 19 August, 2024
2024:MLHC:746
Serial No. 18
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl. Petn. No. 33 of 2024
Date of Decision: 19.08.2024
1.Shri Gesper Langstieh Vs. 1. State of Meghalaya, Rep. by
S/o. Shri S. Marbaniang, The Secretary Department of
R/o. Mawngap (Mawkharshiing) Home (Police), Government of
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya Meghalaya.
2. Smti Mumskiolin Jana 2. The Superintendent of Police
W/o. Shri ElianPyngrope, East Khasi Hills District,
R/o. Nongrah, PS, Rynjah, Shillong Meghalaya.
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
.... Petitioners .... Opposite Parties
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Kumaresan, AAG with
Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of GR
Case No.65 of 2015 arising out of Shillong Sadar PS Case No.
24(02)2015 under Section 354/354A/323/506 IPC pending before the
Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong on the basis of a
2024:MLHC:746
compromise/settlement between the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner
No.2.
2. The brief fact of the case is that a written FIR dated 31.01.2015
was lodged by the petitioner No.2 alleging that the petitioner No.1 had
misbehaved and assaulted her and her sister at Jamballa point near
Mawngap Taxi Stand, Bara Bazar, Shillong on 31.01.2015. On the basis
of the FIR, the Shillong Sadar PS Case No. 24(02)2015 under Section
354/354A/323/506 IPC was registered and investigated into. On the
completion of the investigation, a charge sheet vide C/S No. 27/2015
dated 03.03.2015 was filed and a criminal proceeding under the aforesaid
section of law was initiated against the petitioner No.1 in the Subordinate
District Council Court, Shillong. During the pendency of the matter, the
dispute between the parties has been settled and a compromise/settlement
dated 09.04.2024 was entered into between the petitioner No.1 and 2.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
have settled the matter amicably and voluntary without any force, threat
or coercion and do not want to disturb the peaceful and harmonious
atmosphere being the members of the same community as well as same
place of work. He submits that the FIR was lodged due to some
misunderstanding and difference between the petitioners which has now
been resolved. The dispute was purely personal and private without
having any bearing in the society. He further submits that continuance of
the criminal proceeding in the matter may not be in the best interest of
justice rather may be detrimental to existence of harmonious and peaceful
relation between the petitioner No.1 and 2. The learned counsel submits
that since Section 354/354A IPC are non-compoundable, the petitioners
2024:MLHC:746
have no other option but to approached this Court for giving effect to the
compromise/settlement arrived into between the parties. He places
reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 6 SSC 466,
Narinder Singh & Ors. vs State of Punjab & Anr.,(2014) 9 SSC 653,
Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. and (2022) 14 SCC
531, Ramgopal & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and submits that
High Court has the power and authority under Section 482 Cr.PC to
quash proceeding on the basis of settlement, even if the offence charged
with are non-compoundable.
4. The learned AAG appearing for the State does not dispute the
settlement between the petitioner No.1 and 2. He also does not dispute the
proposition of law cited by the petitioner and in his usual fairness has left
the matter on the discretion of this Court.
5. A perusal of the material on record reveals that due to some dispute
and differences between petitioner No.1 and 2, the FIR dated 31.01.2015
was filed by the petitioner No.2 against the petitioner No.1. The
allegations made in the FIR as well as the narration of facts made in the
charge sheet does not show involvement of any serious offence in the
matter. The occurrence in question is found purely personal without
projection of any mental depravity of the petitioner No.1. The
compromise deed dated 09.04.2024 between the petitioner No.1 and 2
makes it clear that the parties have settled their grievances amicably
without any force, coercion, threat, lure and undue influence from any
quarter.
6. This Court is convinced that the offences involved in the present
matter are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or
2024:MLHC:746
tranquility. Furthermore, there is enough indication that the quashing of
the criminal proceeding will advance peace, harmony and would secure
ends of justice as the parties have decided to forget and forgive ill will
and have no vengeance against each other.
7. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners
clearly lay down that the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC can quash
criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers, even if the
offences are not compoundable.
8. In view of the settled position of law and discussions made above,
the further proceeding of GR Case No. 65 of 2015 arising out of Shillong
Sadar PS Case No. 24(02)2015 under Section 354/354A/323/506 IPC
pending before the Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong is hereby
quashed.
9. The criminal petition stands allowed.
Judge
Meghalaya
19.08.2024
"N.Swer, Stenographer, Gr-II"
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
