High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 366/354 IPC where petitioners and respondents had amicably compromised the matter and married, finding further trial would be an abuse of process.
Criminal proceedings in GR Case No. 1763/2015 and Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 658/2015 incidental thereto are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010165022019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet. 822/2019
1:SHAYRUL HOQUE BARBHUIYA AND ANR. S/O NOOR UDDIN BARBHUIYA, VILL-UTTAR DARAIRGHAT, P.O.KATLICHERRA, P.S.-RAMNATHPUR, DIST-HAILAKANDI, ASSAM
2: FORHANA BEGUM @ FARHANA BEGUM TAPADAR W/O ALTA HUSSAIN TAPADAR VILL-CHANDRAPUR PART-II P.O.-CHANDRAPUR P.S.-LALA DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY PP, ASSAM
2:LIYAKAT LAI LASKAR S/O LT. ASADDAR ALI LASKAR VILL-KANCHANPUR PART-III P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI
ORDER
Date : 13-09-2019
Page No.# 2/3
Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam as well as Ms. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
By this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners has prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 1763/2015 corresponding to Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 658/2015 under Section 366/354 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after lodging the case, both the parties have amicably settled and compromised the matter among themselves and therefore filed the instant petition for quashing the proceeding on the basis of compromise as the offence is not compoundable.
The FIR was lodged alleging that the petitioner kidnapped the daughter of the respondent No. 2 and outrage her modesty. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such incidence had taken place and the FIR was lodged out of misunderstanding and therefore they compromised the matter and in the meantime, both the alleged victim and the petitioner were married and living peaceful life.
Pursuant to the notice issued from the Court, the respondent/ informant has also entered appearance, who has also joined hands with the petitioner for quashing the proceeding.
The law relating to quashing a criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise by now well settled. The prosecution involving heinous and serious offences, like dacoity, murder, rape etc. which are against the society cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. However, the Apex Court observed in Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014 CrL.J. 2436 (SC ), that High Court should not rest its decision merely on the facts that there is a mention of serious penal provision of law, High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of a particular serious section of penal law is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a proceeding where the offences are not serious in nature or even if some serious offence has been alleged or a serious penal provision is incorporated in the FIR or charge sheet, if the materials on record do not support the commission of such offence, court should consider the facts and circumstances of the case.
In the present case, though the FIR case was registered under Section 366 IPC, from the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and the materials brought on
Page No.# 3/3
record, it appears that, an offence under Section 366 IPC is unlikely to be proved. Therefore, having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and considering the documents whereby both the parties have amicably settled and compromised the matter, this court is of the view that allowing this criminal proceeding to continue would not serve any cause of justice, inasmuch as, from the stand taken by the informant and the alleged victim, it is apparent that possibility of the proceeding culminating in conviction of the petitioner is very very bleak as the alleged victim is not going to support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, this court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceeding in the present case would unnecessarily put the parties in hardship and oppression, which may amount to abuse of process of the court and as such, the proceeding deserves to be quashed for ends of justice. Accordingly, the proceeding in GR Case No. 1763/2015 corresponding to Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 658/2015 under Section 366/354 IPC pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi and any other proceeding incidental thereto is hereby quashed.
The criminal petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 366/354 IPC can be quashed on compromise after parties have amicably settled and married.
Whether continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the court given bleak prospects of conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narendra Singh Vs. State of PunjabDistinguished¶22
Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014 CrL.J. 2436 (SC)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SHAYRUL HOQUE BARBHUIYA AND ANR.
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
LIYAKAT LAI LASKAR
MIR ALFAZ ALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
