Quashed

Musleh Uddin Laskar and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC9 Dec 2019Crl.Pet./449/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court exercised inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in a motor accident case. The court held that since the parties had amicably settled the dispute and the trial was unlikely to result in conviction, continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the court's process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 7479/2008 pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate at Guwahati is set aside and quashed.

Musleh Uddin Laskar and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Quashing and FIR | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010091332019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 449/2019

¶6

1:MUSLEH UDDIN LASKAR AND ANR.

¶7

S/O ABIDUR RAHMAN LASKAR, R/O RAUSHNI PATH, FAKHARUDDIN ALI AHMED NAGAR, SIXMILE, GUWAHATI-781022

¶8

2: RATUL ALI S/O LATE NURUL ISLAM @ NOOR ISLAM R/O NOTBOMA HATIGAON GUWAHATI-3

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H BARBHUIYA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 09-12-2019

¶17

Heard Mr. N.H. Barbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

¶18

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners praying for setting aside/quashing the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 7479/2008 (Arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No. 1332/2008) pending in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati.

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

Mr. N.H. Barbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the accused and the petitioner No. 2 is the injured in the above noted case. Mr. Barbhuiyan further submits that the petitioner No. 1 is a State Government employee and in the Housing Complex, where he was residing, in the year 2008, on a day, while he was driving his Santro car backwards, inadvertently hit against the bicycle of the petitioner No. 2, resulting in injuries on his person and he had to be hospitalised for treatment. According to Mr. Barbhuiyan, in connection with the aforesaid accident, the father of the petitioner No. 2 filed an ejahar, whereupon Dispur P.S. Case No. 1332/2008 was registered and after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet and further, the learned Court below took cognizance of the offences under Sections 279/427 of the IPC in the said G.R. Case No. 7479/2008, which is presently at the initial stage of trial. It is also submitted that the aforesaid case was amicably settled between the parties, on 19.10.2008, in presence of the local elders.

¶21

Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the accident occurred on 07.10.2008 and immediately, thereafter, on 19.10.2008, it was compromised between the parties creating a deed of compromise. Mr. Dutta further submits that in terms of the deed of compromise, the petitioner No. 1 has paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards compensation and paid the medical expenses. Therefore, Mr. Dutta fairly submits that the very object of trial of the case has become infructuous and the offence under Section 279 of the IPC being a noncompoundable offence, the remedy lies in Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶22

It is judicially well-settled that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The offence under Section 279 of the IPC is although a non-compoundable offence, it prescribes punishment of imprisonment upto 6 (Six) months or with fine upto Rs.1,000/- whereas the offence under Section 427 of the IPC is compoundable and carries a punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to 2 (Two) years or with fine or with both. The parties have already amicably settled the accident that occurred on 07.10.2008 way back on 19.10.2008, in terms of the deed of compromise vide Annexure-2. Therefore, this Court is of the view that if the prosecution case is allowed to be continued that will be an abuse of the process of Court and it is unlikely to result in the conviction of the petitioner No. 2 and as such, will be detrimental to the mutual interest of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice by enduring the restored cordial relationship between them, it is expedient that the criminal proceeding be brought to an end.

¶23

For the above stated reasons, it is provided that the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 7479/2008

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

(corresponding to Dispur P.S. Case No. 1332/2008) pending in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate at Guwahati be set aside and quashed as prayed, in exercise of the power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, it is ordered.

¶26

With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Musleh Uddin Laskar and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musleh Uddin Laskar and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abu Bakkar Siddique Sk. @ Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sabir Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Pradip Dutta and 6 Ors. Vs Sri Tapan Kumar Das and 2 Ors.

Hanifuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Hema Prava Medhi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Moina Gohain @ Dibyajyoti Vs the State of Assam and Anr.