Allowed

Himanish Chakraborty v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC17 Aug 2022Crl.Pet./338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings for matrimonial offences under Section 482 CrPC. After parties settled disputes amicably and executed a mutual agreement, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower court proceedings as continuing would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

PRC Case No. 639/2021 arising from Charge-sheet No. 250/2020 registered under Sections 493/384/406/354 IPC is set aside and quashed.

Himanish Chakraborty Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010071552022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet./338/2022

¶5

HIMANISH CHAKRABORTY

¶6

S/O. LT. HIMANGSHU CHAKRABORTY, R/O. C/O. SWAPAN KR. ROY, AMBICAPATTY CURCH ROAD, BYE LANE, SILCHAR. P.S. SILCHAR SADAR, P.O. G.C. COLLEGE, DIST. CACHAR, PIN-788004.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY PP, ASSAM.

¶9

2:KUSUM UMARI

¶10

D/O. LT. RAJA GOUR R/O. RAILWAY QUARTER NO.56/B ACCOUNTS COLONY PANDU GUWAHATI-13

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z ALAM

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Ms. S. Nazneen

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 17-08-2022

¶16

Heard Mr. Z. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent no. 1 and Ms. S. Nazneen, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶19

This application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the applicant, namely, Shri Himanish Chakraborty, for quashing the entire proceeding of PRC Case No. 639/2021 arising out of Charge-sheet No. 250/2020, dated 25.12.2020, registered under Sections 493/384/406/354 IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

¶20

The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:

¶21

“On 18.01.20202, one Smti Kusum Kumari lodged one F.I.R. with the Officer-in-Charge, Jalukbari Police Station, to the effect that promising to marry her, one Shri Himanish Chakraborty established physical relationship with her and thereafter, he blackmailed her and demanded dowry from her and also attempted to kidnap her and subjected her to harassment both physical and mental and thereby cheated her. Upon the said F.I.R., the Officer-in-Charge, Jalukbari Police Station, registered Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 79/2020, under Sections 420/406/493/352/366/511/384 IPC and endorsed S.I. Hemen Sarma to investigate the case. During investigation, the I.O has visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, got the victim examined by Doctor and collected the report and also got her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, he laid charge-sheet against Shri Himanish Chakraborty to stand trial under Sections 493/354/384/406 IPC before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

Kamrup. Thereafter, on 31.03.2022, the petitioner and the informant settled the matter amicably between themselves and also they had entered into one mutual agreement and on the basis of the said mutual agreement, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing the proceeding of PRC Case No. 639/2021, arising out of Chargesheet No. 250/2020, dated 25.12.2020, registered under Sections 493/384/406/354 IPC.

¶24

Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the informant has lodged the case against the petitioner, yet, subsequently, they had settled the dispute among themselves and they have also executed one mutual agreement deed and on the basis of the same, they have approached this Court for quashing the proceeding. Mr. Alam therefore, contended to allow the petition.

¶25

On the other hand, Ms. Nazneen, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the respondent no. 2 is no longer willing to pursue the matter and they have settled the disputes and confirmed that the petitioner and the informant have entered into a mutual agreement on 31.03.2022 and as such, she has no objection in the event of quashing of the PRC Case No. 639/2021 arising out of Charge-sheet No. 250/2020, dated 25.12.2020, registered under Sections 493/384/406/354 IPC.

¶26

On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that since the matter has been settled by the parties, the State has no objection in the event of allowing the petition.

¶27

Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

record, especially the mutual agreement dated 31.03.2022, entered into by both the parties. It appears that the case has been registered under Sections 420/406/493/352/366/511/384 IPC, but after investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 493/384/406/354 IPC. Being the offences are not compoundable, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding.

¶30

It is to be noted here that while dealing with the quashing of proceeding in non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromised deed, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State Of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan , reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , referring to its earlier decision in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 06 SCC 466 , in paragraph No. 13(i), observed that “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 Code, can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly of 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.”

¶31

Again in the case of Narendra Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:-

¶32

(i) ends of justice, or

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶35

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.”

¶36

In the case in hand, the petitioner and the informant have resolved their disputes amicably. The dispute relates to matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the informant. Since they have resolved their entire disputes amicably and no longer willing to pursue the matter, it will advance the cause of justice if the petition is allowed. Moreover, as the dispute is settled amicably, the respondent No. 2 is unlikely to depose against the petitioner in the event of allowing the proceeding to continue before the learned Court below, in that case, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶37

Having regard to the submissions of the learned Advocates of both sides and also, considering the facts and circumstances on the record and further considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court is inclined to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The PRC Case No. 639/2021, arising out of Charge-sheet No. 250/2020, dated 25.12.2020, registered under Sections 493/384/406/354 IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial MagistrateII, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati stands set aside and quashed.

¶38

In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Himanish Chakraborty v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanish Chakraborty v. the State of Assam and Anr.

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

Rakesh Dudharia Vs the State of Assam

Latho Sonowal Vs the State of Arunachal Pradesh

Sahid Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

Saddam Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Mukul Chandra Das and Anr. Vs Smti Gita Devi and Anr.

Alfaruqure Faraji @ Alfaruk Foraji Vs the State of Assam and Anr.