[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Sikkim High Court
Deewas Rai And Ano vs State Of Sikkim on 28 November, 2025
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
DATED : 28th November, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.05 of 2025
Petitioners : Deewas Rai and Another
versus
Respondent : State of Sikkim
Application under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Aditya Makkhim and Ms. Wupi Miwu, Advocates for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 28-11-2025
Date of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025
Date of Uploading : 28-11-2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The Petitioners have filed an application under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter,
the "BNSS"), seeking quashing of the FIR bearing No.38 of 2024,
dated 02-04-2024, registered at the Sadar Police Station, Gangtok,
against the Petitioner No.1, under Sections 498A/324/506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the "IPC") and the
consequential proceedings in G.R. Case No.217 of 2024 (State of
Sikkim vs. Deewas Rai) pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gangtok, Sikkim.
2. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for both the
Petitioners that the FIR was lodged by Petitioner No.2 stating that
on 26-03-2024 her husband Petitioner No.1 had assaulted her with
Deewas Rai and Another vs. State of Sikkim
fist blows and a Coffee Maker and threatened to kill her by hanging
her to death. She had also alleged that she had been continuously
beaten up with articles like table, stick, chair, etc. On the basis of
the FIR, on completion of investigation, G.R. Case came to be
registered before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate where
the matter is now pending. That, now the Petitioners No.1 and 2
have resolved their disputes and are living together. In fact they
have been together a few days after the above incident occurred.
They have a minor daughter, who is aged about two and half years
old. The Petitioner No.1 is taking care of both the Petitioner No.2
and the minor child. That, with the intervention of friends, family
and well wishers the Petitioners resolved their differences hence the
Petitioner No.2 does not seek to pursue the Criminal Case against
the Petitioner No.1. That, the settlement has been arrived at by the
Petitioner No.2 of her own accord and free will and without any
coercion from any party whatsoever. She is also conscious of the
fact that should the Petitioner No.1 be convicted then she and the
child will have to bear far reaching consequences such a financial
difficulties and lack of care. As they are now living a peaceful
married life, the instant Petition has been filed.
3. Per contra, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits
that the offences committed by the Petitioner No.1 are non-
compoundable offences and he has assaulted the victim Petitioner
No.2 physically and also threatened to kill her on several occasions.
In such circumstances, the prayers put forth by the Petitioner No.1
deserve no consideration and the Petition ought to be dismissed.
4. Having given due consideration to the competing
submissions advanced, I am of the considered view that the matter
Deewas Rai and Another vs. State of Sikkim
has been resolved between the Petitioners out of their own free
will. The Petitioner No.2 admits that she is not under any coercion
to compromise the matter. It was done on her own accord. They
not only share the same roof but also have a minor child to take
care of.
5. In Sushil Suri vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another , while further examining the scope, ambit and extent of
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section
528 of the BNSS), the Supreme Court held as under;
"16. Section 482 CrPC itself envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction
may be exercised by the High Court, namely, (i) to give
effect to an order under CrPC; (ii) to prevent an abuse
of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure
the ends of justice. It is trite that although the power
possessed by the High Court under the said provisions
is very wide but it is not unbridled. It has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which
alone the Court exists. Nevertheless, it is neither
feasible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule
which would govern the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction of the Court. Yet, in numerous cases, this
Court has laid down certain broad principles which may
be borne in mind while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC. Though it is emphasized that
exercise of inherent powers would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case, but the common
thread which runs through all the decisions on the
subject is that the Court would be justified in invoking
its inherent jurisdiction where the allegations made in
the complaint or charge-sheet, as the case may be,
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not constitute the offence alleged."
(i) A larger Bench of Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State
of Punjab and Another , summed up the correct proposition of law in
this respect as under;
"57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings
on the ground of settlement between an offender and
victim is not the same thing as compounding of
offence. They are different and not interchangeable.
Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of
(2011) 5 SCC 708
(2012) 10 SCC 303
Deewas Rai and Another vs. State of Sikkim
offences given to a court under Section 320 is
materially different from the quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences,
power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the
provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is
guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other
hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for
quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or
criminal complaint is guided by the material on record
as to whether the ends of justice would justify such
exercise of power although the ultimate consequence
may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute
between the offender and the victim has been settled
although the offences are not compoundable, it does so
as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings
will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case
demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of
justice being the ultimate guiding factor. ................."
(ii) On the anvil of the principles enunciated hereinabove,
despite the objection raised by the Prosecution, I am of the
considered view that for a peaceful family life, this is a fit case
where the Petition ought to be and is accordingly allowed.
6. Consequently, FIR bearing No.38 of 2024, dated 02-04-
2024, registered before the Sadar Police Station Gangtok, under
Sections 498A/324/506 of the IPC stands quashed.
7. The consequent proceedings being G.R. Case No.217 of
2024 (State of Sikkim vs. Deewas Rai) pending before the Court of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangtok, Sikkim, also stands quashed.
8. Crl. M. C. No.05 of 2025 stands disposed of.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
28-11-2025
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds/sdl
