Disposed

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

Gauhati HC11 Dec 2019Crl.Petn./82/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.PC quashing FIR alleging offences under IPC 354/354-B not allowed as FIR reveals cognizable offence per State v. Bhajan Lal; however, parties settled case out of court, court directed that prosecutrix be examined first before recording evidence.

What did the court decide?

No quashing order; direction that prosecutrix be examined first at trial before further proceedings.

Sri. Anying Yomso Vs the State of A.P. — Domestic Violence | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC040006832019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn. 82/2019

¶5

1:SRI. ANYING YOMSO

¶6

S/O NOMIN YOMSO RESIDENT OF SIBO SIANG, PASIGHAT, DISTT. EAST SIANG, A.P

¶7

2: MISS NUPI NGUPOK D/O SRI. JOHN NGUPOK and MRS. YATER TAPAK VILLAGE- DEPI PO/PS-NARI DISTTLOWER SIANG A.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:THE STATE OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MrT Tapak

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Date : 11-12-2019

¶16

Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Tsering, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, AP.

¶17

This is a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, praying for setting aside and quashing of the Pasighat PS Case No. 158/2019 under Sections 354/354-B IPC and the FIR

¶18

Page No.# 2/2

¶19

therein filed by the petitioner No. 2.

¶20

I have gone through the petition as well as the annexures furnished therewith. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the petitioner No. 2, the informant, raised an accusation in the FIR, annexed as Annexure-1 at page-9, that the accused-petitioner inappropriately touched her friend Miss. Yazing Gammeng, and while she reacted by beating the petitioner No. 1/accused, he reacted by suddenly attacking her and tearing open her blouse revealing her inner garments.

¶21

Such statement in the FIR itself reveals a cognizable offence, and therefore, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this case cannot be quashed in view of the fact that the First Information Report(FIR) reveals a cognizable offence. However, since both the parties have jointly filed this petition settling the matter outside the court, between them, and the case is not compoundable, it is expected that at the time of recording evidence by the learned trial court, the prosecutrix be examined first and on the basis of her evidence, further proceeding with the case should be decided.

¶22

With the above observations and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Anying Yomso 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

Shri Monya Nyori Vs the State of A.P.

Shri Maryom Karlo Vs Ms. Karpu Geyi

Shri Chamsen Nyori Vs Shri Monya Nyori

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

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

Shri Nabam Tania Vs the State of A.P.