Hearing a petition for quashing an FIR where parties reached a compromise and the privies ceased to pursue the matter.
Quashed the FIR registered as Morigaon P.S. Case No. 124/2020.
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
GAHC010054722020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet. 233/2020
1:PALLAB JYOTI BARUAH AND 2 ORS.
S/O PRABIN BARUAH, VILL-NA-BHETI, W/NO-9, P.S. AND DISTMORIGAON, ASSAM
2: DIGAMBA ROY S/O BHIMBAR ROY VILL-NO. 2 SHAALMARI P.S AND DIST-MORIGAON
3: NAJRUL HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL HUSSAIN VILL-DALBARI P.S. AND DIST-MORIGAO
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 02-09-2020
Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the respondent State.
The petitioners, namely, 1. Pallab Jyoti Baruah, 2. Digambar Roy and 3. Najrul Hussain have filed this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the FIR of Morigaon P.S. case No. 124/2020.
On 20.02.2020 the aforementioned Digambar Roy had lodged an FIR alleging that at about 4 p.m. on that date Pallab Jyoti Baruah had called him over phone and claiming to be a news reporter and accused the informant that he was indulging in corrupt practices in MGNRAEGA matters and this Pallab Jyoti Baruah allegedly threatened him that unless he paid Rs. 4,000/- to him, he will publish a news item about the said corrupt practices. It is, further, stated in the FIR that the informant had already delivered the aforesaid Rs. 4,000/- to Pallab Jyoti Baruah. It is also alleged in the FIR that Md. Najrul Hussain, an acquaintance of the informant, had arrived there when the informant had paid money to Pallab Jyoti Baruah and therefore Pallab Jyoti Baruah had also threatened him.
Now, all the 3 (three) persons involved in this matter have jointly filed this petition praying for quashing the FIR on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise and the informant also agreed not to pursue the matter.
The Supreme Court in the case of Nikhil Marchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677 has held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties by which the parties have withdrawn the claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceeding since the same would be a futile exercise.
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives inherent power to High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure justice. The jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter between themselves is not the same as compounding of an offence under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.. The power to quash under Section 482 can be exercised if the offence is not compoundable.
Today, after considering the matter in its entirety and after hearing the learned counsel for the
Page No.# 3/3
parties, I am of the considered opinion that there is no possibility of future conviction of Pallab Jyoti Baruah or any one connected to the case. In my considered opinion, this is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. For the aforesaid premised reasons the FIR registered as Morigaon P.S. Case No. 124/2020 stands quashed.
The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon arrival of compromise and non-proveness of case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nikhil Marchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationRelied on¶22
(2008) 9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pallab Jyoti Baruah and 2 Ors.
The State of Assam
Parthivjyoti Saikia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
