Rupan Das vs State Of Meghalaya & Anr

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing of criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No.2 (S) of 2018 under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and subsequent proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Shillong.

Brief facts may be noticed.

It is the case of the petitioner that the criminal machinery was set into motion upon the institution of the FIR No.5 by private respondent No.2 on 09.01.2017 before the Officer-in-Charge Sadar Police Station, Shillong to the effect that the petitioner had committed first theft on 05.12.2016 of Rs. 8000/- and thereafter another theft on 08.01.2017 amounting to Rs. 10,000/- from the residence of respondent No.2. Thereafter, the police registered a case being Sadar PS Case No.5(1) of 2017 under Section 380 IPC. On completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 380 IPC being charge sheet No.23/2017 dated 28.02.2017 and the case is still pending adjudication before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong being G.R. Case No.2(S) of 2018 under Section 380 IPC. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the instant case, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have amicably settled the matter and a compromise deed has also been executed between them.

It is the further case of the petitioner that the complainant had also agreed and made a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 16.05.2019 in which the complainant stated that he had settled the matter with the petitioner and does not want to pursue with the instant case and intends to seek quashing of the proceedings by filing an application before the High Court as has been reflected in the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

Petitioner asserts that a compromise deed has also been executed between them and since all the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent, the proceedings arising out of the FIR may be closed and hence, the present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the complainant Shri Bablu Burman aged 34 years son of Shri Brissketu Burman on oath has been recorded in Court today as well as before the Trial Court on 16.05.2019 appended at Annexure-III along with this petition.

Relying upon the case of Narinder Singh & ors v. State of Punjab & anr: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it was contended that the Apex Court therein has laid down broad principles and guidelines for quashing of FIR on the basis of settlement between the parties. It has also laid down that quashment of the proceedings depends on facts and circumstances of each case.

The broad principles enumerated in Narinder Singh's case (supra) are as under:-

"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.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

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.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate part of the body, nature of weapon used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timing of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

In the present case, the complainant had lodged an FIR for theft of cash amounting to Rs. 8000/- and Rs. 10,000/-. The contents of FIR read thus:-

"To,

The Officer-in-Charge,

Sadar Police Station

793001

East Khasi Hills

Dated: 08/01/2017

Subject: Theft of cash report

Sir,

I Bablu Burman residing as a tenant in residence of Mr. Aju Roy Choudhaury (Residence of Sujata decorator) at Bivar Road, Shillong would like to report theft of cash from my residence. The first theft was on 05 Dec 16 of Rs.8000 from my residence being in doubt I managed to gather a proof in the form of video when it was done of 8/01/17 was of Rs.10,000 from the same place. I would like to file a report against Mr. Rupon Das S/o Late Subir Das residing in the same premises as mine. The details are recorded and handed along with the FIR in the form of CD which I am submitting along. I would request you to take a quick action.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully

Bablu Burman

F.Name Bishketu Burman"

The nature of offence in the present case does not fall in the category of heinous crime. Moreover, as recorded in the statement on oath today in the Court, the complainant has received the aforesaid amount. It was stated that the complainant does not want to pursue with the case. The statement recorded reads as under:-

"I had lodged F.I.R. No.05 dated 09-01-2017 under Section 380 I.P.C. before the Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Shillong for theft of cash of Rs. 8000/- and Rs. 10,000/- from my residence which was registered as Shillong Sardar P.S. Case No.5(1)17 u/s 380 I.P.C.

I have compromised the dispute with the accused person, Shri Rupon Das and have received the aforesaid amount of Rs. 8000/-and Rs. 10,000/- from him. I have also made a statement before the trial court that the matter had been settled and do not wish to pursue with the aforesaid F.I.R. and an application shall be filed for quashing the proceedings before the High Court of Meghalaya.

The statement made in Court today is voluntary of my own free will without any pressure, coercion or undue influence."

Keeping in view of the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh's case (supra) and examining the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that it is fit case for quashing the FIR. Accordingly, FIR No.5 under Section 380 IPC dated 09.01.2017 registered by Sadar Police Station, Shillong (Annexure-I) and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

Criminal petition stands disposed of as above.