Quashed

Mr. Ha Taw v. the State of A.P.

Gauhati HC12 Dec 2019Crl.Petn./39/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Assam quashed the charge sheet in a matrimonial dispute under Sections 498A, 506, and 109 IPC based on a settlement between parties. Relying on the Laxmi Narayan precedent, the Court held that proceeding further constituted abuse of process under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet No. 17/2013 dated 04.02.2013 in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No. 296/2011 and G.R. Case No. 484/2011 set aside and quashed.

Mr. Ha Taw Vs the State of A.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040000772019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn. 39/2019

¶5

1:MR. HA TAW S/O MR. HA TAYUM, P/R/O HA VILLAGE, PO TALI, PS SANGRAM, KRA DADI DIST. AP. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PAPU NALLAH, NAHARLAGUN, PO/PS NAHARLAGUN, DIST. PAPUM PARE, AP. MOB 8794030209 2: MR. HA RINA W/O MR. HA TAW P/R/O HA HA VILLAGE PO TALI PS SANGRAM KRA DAADI DIST. AP. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PAPU NALLAH NAHARLAGUN PO/PS NAHARLAGUN DIST. PAPUM PARE AP. 3: MRS. YANGA MARBAM W/O MR. HA TAW RESIDENT OF FOREST COPORATION AREA GOHPUR TINALI PO RK MISSION PS ITANAGAR DIST. PAPUM PARE AP VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF A.P. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AP.

¶6

Advocate for the Petitioner : A Tatak

¶7

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶8

Page No.# 2/3

¶9

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Date : 12-12-2019

¶12

This is a joint application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the Charge-Sheet No. 17/2013 dated 04.02.2013 in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No. 296/2011 under Section 498 (A)/506/109 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to G. R. Case No. 484/2011) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia.

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel Mr. V. Jamoh for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

The fact of the case, as emerged from the FIR, is that the petitioner No. 2 Ms. Ha Rina is the informant, petitioner No.3 is a lady with whom the petitioner No. 1 maintains illicit relationship for about 2 (two) years. The petitioner No. 3 is alleged to have defamed the petitioner No. 2 i.e. the wife of the petitioner No. 1. It was also alleged in the FIR that her husband/ the petitioner No. 1 used to beat the petitioner No. 2.

¶15

On the basis of the FIR, Police registered the case, referred to above, investigated into it, and finally, laid the Charge-Sheet against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 under Section 498 (A)/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Now, it appears from this joint petition filed by the parties that the petitioner No. 2 has settled the matter with the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 and she has been residing with the petitioner No. 1/ her husband settling the dispute with him.

¶17

On perusal of the entire facts, it appears to this Court that the dispute between the parties is basically matrimonial in nature and although, Section 498 (A) of the IPC is not a compoundable offence yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh-vsLaxmi Narayan and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the

¶18

Page No.# 3/3 Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves.

¶19

In the instant case, as indicated above, the dispute appears to be matrimonial in nature and the parties have resolved their dispute amicably outside the Court. Therefore, taking into account the law laid down in the aforesaid Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (Supra) , this Court is of the view that further proceeding with the case, mentioned above, and sought to be quashed in this petition shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Charge-Sheet No. 17/2013 dated 04.02.2013 in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No. 296/2011 under Section 498 (A)/506/109 of the Indian Penal Code (and the G. R. Case No. 484/2011) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia are hereby set aside and quashed.

¶20

This disposes of this Criminal Petition.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

Comparing Assistant

Mr. Ha Taw v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ha Taw v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Anying Yomso Vs the State of A.P.

Shri Rekhi Tana Tara Vs the State of A.P.

Shri Monya Nyori Vs the State of A.P.

Shri Nabam Tania Vs the State of A.P.

Remran Jugli Vs the State of Ap

Union of India Vs Shri Jamenso Kri