AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.—Heard Mr. P.N. Nongbri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. G. Marak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and also Ms. N.G. Shylla, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.
By this criminal petition, petitioner is praying for quashing the criminal case G.R. (A) Case No. 92/2014 (i.e. Rynjah P.S. Case No. 9 (2) 2011, under Sections 365 , 367 , 325 read with 34 of the IPC) against the present petitioner. The fact of the case sufficient for deciding the present criminal petition is recapitulated. The petitioner (wife) married the respondent No. 2 under the Special Marriage Act, and their marriage was also registered and obtained the Marriage Certificate dated 11-04-2003. It is stated that due to excessive abuse by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was constantly facing hardship. It is also stated that the respondent No. 2 had undergone various treatments for excessive abuse of alcohol.
The respondent No. 2 had filed a case being Rynjah P.S. Case No. 9 (2) 2011, under Sections 365 , 367 , 325 read with 34 of the IPC before the Officer Incharge, Rynjah Police Station. Copy of the original ejahar of the said P.S. Case No. 9 (2) 2011, under Sections 365 , 367 , 325 read with 34 of the IPC is available at pages 13 and 14 of the present criminal petition. For easy reference, the said ejahar is quoted hereunder:
"To
The Officer in Charge Rynjah Police Station Shillong
Subject: First Information Report.
Sir,
With reference to the subject cited above, I the undersigned beg to state as follows:-- That I am a permanent resident of Langkyrding, Nongmensong when on 07-02-2011 when I reached home at 10.15 Pm, my wife Smti. Lorin Nongsiej inform me that some people had argued above me with regard to an accident. Since it was late I told her that the matter would be solved out the next day. I went to bad when at about 10.30PM some people knocked at my bedroom door and a male voice spoke in which stating that there have been an accident and asked me to open the door. I replied that it was late but he insisted that I came and release the vehicle.
At his resistance I opened the door to my room when three men grabbed me and shut my mouth and handcuff my hand behind. I struggle but they threatened and stuffed above ten nos. of talleb into my mouth and throw me to an Indica which was waiting outside the person drove and led the way in a blue coloured Ritz while the Indica followed the blue Ritz than stopped at Mawiong and return to Shillong while the Indica proceeded to Guwahati when I was consciousness.
That I regain consciousness at above 8AM the next day in the house situated at Charali and was blueed on the house arrest till the next date when they take me to the railway station at Guwahati and force me to bored a train which was Howrah bound at above 6AM along with two people. That we reached Calcutta on 10-2-2012 at above 2PM when I saw some men at Howrah railway station wearing police uniforms and ask them for help I then inform them of my situation and they ask me to write a complain which I did instead they took me to Howrah Police station where I was made to wait till 2PM when the person who had abducted me from my house come and took me to a waiting maruti van once inside the van, he punch me on my nose and from there I was taken to a dilapidated building and was made to stay with other people there.
That I was randomly beaten on 10-2-2011 and 11-2-2011 when on 13-2-2011 at above 2PM the men who had adopted me who I then knew was Shri Arup Bhattacharjee told me that I was going home. I was accompany to the airport by some person who took me from Guwahati to Calcutta (Nepali person) However, we missed the flight and issued tickets for the next day flight.
That we boarded the flight on 14-2-2011 and reach Guwahati airport at above 10.45AM reaching there one Anop met me and return my gold rings (3 nos) wrist watch which was confiscated from me at the house in Charali.
That I return to Shillong with my relatives and report directly to Rynjah Police Station where I was sent for medical examination at civil hospital however I was advice by the Doctor to be admitted for treatment and I presently hospitalized.
That I have been adducted against my will at the behest of my wife Smit. Lorin Nongseij, Shri Arup Bhattacharjee and other person driving a blue Ritz further i was grievously assaulted due to which I am undergoing treatment at civil hospital Shillong and the same people ahd threatened to kill me, as such I request you to kindly take action against them as per relevant provision of the law.
Thanking you Dated Shillong: the 14-02-2011
Yours faithfully,
(Colin Rangad)
Received vide Rynjah P.S. GDE No. 301 Dt. 15.02.2011 and registered vide Rynjah P.S. C/No. 9 (2) 2011 u/s. 365 /367 /325 /34 IPC. SI. Subir Sangma will investigate the case. Sd/- INSP. A.M.
Marak O/C Rynjah P.S. Shillong.
Action taken (Since the above information reveals commission of offence(s) u/s. as mentioned at item No. 2:
F.I.R. read over to the complainant/informant, admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy given to the complainant/informant, free of cost:
Signature/Thumb Impression Signature of Officer Of the Complainant/ Informant
Name: SHRI A M MARAK Rank: INS No. 9597
Date and Time of dispatch to the court:"
The respondent No. 2 had filed a Divorce petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act against the petitioner before the Court of the learned Judge, District Council Court, Shillong which was registered as Divorce Suit No. 60/2013. During the pendency of the said Divorce Suit, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat held on 06-12-2014. The parties had mutually agreed to divorce on the terms and conditions which were agreed upon between the parties. The terms and conditions of the settlement were also recorded by the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat and prepared the award dated 06-12-2014 under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The copy of the award dated 06-12-2014 is also available at Annexure-6 to the criminal petition. The operative portion of the award read as follows:
"Award
The dispute between the parties having been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat and the parties having compromised/settled the case/matter, the following award is passed in terms of the settlement.
Both parties are personally present before the Lok Adalat today. The petitioner Shri Colin Rangad has made an undertaking to withdraw all the cases against his wife Smti. Lorina Nongseij.
Both parties have undertaken not to make any future claim or demand against each other and have now consented to the divorce. The divorce is accordingly allowed on mutual consent and the marriage between the parties is hereby dissolved.
Upon hearing both parties and upon perusal of the materials placed before this Lok Adalat, we are convinced that the settlement is fair free from collusion, coercion, undue influenced being just, fair and reasonable as per terms mentioned above.
The parties are informed that the court fee if any, paid by any of them shall be refunded.
Signature of presiding Officer"
The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits at the Bar that the matrimonial dispute between the parties i.e. the petitioner on one side and the respondents No. 2 and 3 on the other side had been settled amicably under the said award dated 06-12-2014 prepared by the National Lok Adalat. Inspite of the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner on one side and the respondents No. 2 and 3 on the other side had been settled under the said award of the National Lok Adalat, the said criminal case G.R.(A) Case No. 92/2014 (i.e. Rynjah P.S. Case No. 9 (2) 2011 under Section 365 , 367 , 325 read with 34 of the IPC) is still lingering only on the ground that the offence under Sections 365 and 367 are not compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
Mr. P.N. Nongbri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the power of this Court under Section 482 is inherent jurisdiction and distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.. Therefore, it is his submission that since the matrimonial dispute between the parties had already been settled by the Lok Adalat vide the said award dated 06-12-2014, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may quash the said criminal case G.R.(A) Case No. 92/2014 (i.e. Rynjah P.S. Case No. 9 (2) 2011 under Section 365 , 367 , 325 read with 34 of the IPC) even if the case was registered for the non-compoundable offences under Sections 365 and 367 of the Cr.P.C.
Mr. P.N. Nongbri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, . Para 61 of the SCC in Gain Singh''s case (Supra) read as follows:
"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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
Mr. G. Marak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 also contended that since the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner on one side and the respondents No. 2 and 3 on the other side had already been settled amicably vide the said award of the Lok Adalat dated 06-12-2014, the respondents No. 2 and 3 are also not interested in pursuing the said criminal case i.e. Rynjah P.S. case No. 9 (2) 2011, under Sections 365 , 367 , 325 read with 34 of the IPC.
Keeping in view of the ratio decidendi of Gain Singh''s case (Supra), this Court is of the considered view that this Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 for quashing the criminal case G.R.(A) Case No. 92/2014 (i.e. Rynjah P.S. Case No. 9 (2) 2011 under Section 365 , 367 , 325 read with 34 of the IPC) of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong. Accordingly, G.R. (A) Case No. 92/2014 of the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong is hereby quashed.
Criminal petition is allowed.