Allowed

Pratap Paul Roy v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC16 Nov 2022Crl.Pet./611/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings instituted under Section 498(A) IPC following an amicable settlement agreement between the husband and wife, citing remote possibility of conviction and preventing abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet No. 76/2020 arising from FIR No. 62/2020 is set aside and quashed; parties bear their own costs.

Pratap Paul Roy Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010126082022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet./611/2022

¶5

PRATAP PAUL ROY

¶6

S/O- SRI PRIYATOSH PAUL ROY, R/O- JOYMATI NAGAR, BYE LANE 11, P.O. PANDU, P.S. JALUKBARI, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781012.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM

¶9

2:SMT. SUNI RUDRA PAL D/O- SRI HRIDAY KUMAR RUDRA PAL W/O- SRI PRATAP PAUL ROY R/O- DAILY BAZAR ROAD WARD NO. 8 P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. NORTH LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787001 AND PRESENTLY POSTED AT HLST SBI 4TH FLOOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE GUWAHATI SHOHUM EMPORIA BUILDING G.S. ROAD NEAR RAJIB BHAWAN GUWAHATI P.O. AND P.S. BHANGAGARH PIN- 781005

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J P DAS

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/6

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN JUDGMENT

¶14

Date : 16-11-2022

¶15

Heard Mr. J.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, and also heard Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2; and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent no. 1.

¶16

2. This application, under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is preferred by Sri Pratap Paul Roy for quashing the FIR No.62/2020 of All Women P.S. and the charge sheet No. 76/2020, dated 14.10.2020, under section 498(A) IPC and continuation of further proceeding under section 341/352/294 IPC.

¶17

3. The said case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Smti Suni Rudra Pal, alleging inter alia amongst others that she got married with one Sri Pratap Paul Roy of Pandu, Guwahati, Assam on 1^st of March, 2018 and thereafter, lived together in the house of the petitioner as husband and wife. After the marriage, she was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty, demanding money by Sri Pratap Paul Roy and his family members. Upon the said FIR the O/C , All Women PS registered a case, No. 62/2020, under section 498[A] of IPC investigated the same and after completion of the investigation the I.O. laid charge sheet against the petitioner to stand trial in the court, under section 498[A] of IPC.

¶18

4. Mr. J.P. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner

¶19

and the respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement on 7^th of April, 2022 and they have decided to settle their entire dispute amicably and they are no longer

¶20

Page No.# 3/6

¶21

willing to pursue the present case and the said agreement of settlement of matrimonial dispute is annexed as Annexure No. 6. Since the partied have decided not proceed with the present case in view of the agreement, Mr. Das has contended to quash the present proceeding, pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

¶22

5. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent No.1, also submits that since the parties have settled the dispute amicably, they have no objection in the event of quashing the charge sheet of the present proceeding.

¶23

6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties, and I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. It appears that the All Women PS case No. 62/2020, under section 498[A] of IPC has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Smti Suni Rudra Pal and upon the said FIR the All Women PS case No. 62/2020, under section 498[A] of IPC has been registered and investigated upon and after completion of investigation the I.O. had laid charge sheet against the present petitioner to stand trial under section 498[A] of IPC. It also appears from the Order dated 09.02.2021, passed by the learned Judicial magistrate, 1^st Class, kamrup (M) , Guwahati that upon the said charge sheet, the learned court below has taken cognizance under section 341/352/294 IPC, and issued process to the petitioner.

¶24

7. While the aforementioned case has been pending for consideration of charge before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup [M] Guwahati, the present petitioner has approached this court, by filing the present

¶25

Page No.# 4/6

¶26

petition, for quashing the charge sheet on the strength of deed of agreement dated 7^th of April, 2022 of settlement of matrimonial dispute.

¶27

8. I have carefully gone through the agreement which is annexed as Annexure No. 6 and it appears that both the parties have decided to settle their entire matrimonial dispute amicably and they are no longer willing to proceed with the present case also.

¶28

9. It is to be mentioned here that while dealing with the issue of quashing of criminal proceeding by exercising the power under section 482 Cr.P.C., Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SSC 303, held as under:-

¶29

“ When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the Criminal Proceeding is filed, the guiding factor in such cases could be to secure:-

¶30

(I) end of justice and

¶31

(II) to prevent abused of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court, however, has to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶32

10. It is further, held that-

¶33

“ Those Criminal Cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly, those arising out of commercial decision or arising out of the matrimonial relationship or family dispute should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. It is also held that, while exercising its power, the High Court is to examine whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and

¶34

Page No.# 5/6

¶35

prejudice and extreme injustice would caused to him by not quashing the Criminal Cases.”

¶36

11. Same view is re-iterated in the case of and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466 , and also in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others , reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 .

¶37

12. Here in this case the dispute between the parties are overwhelmingly matrimonial dispute and both the parties have decided to settle their entire dispute amicably, and they are not willing to pursue the All Women PS case No. 62/2020, under section 498[A] of IPC, and they have entered into an agreement also which is annexed with the petition as Annexure No.6. Since the parties have settled the disputes amicably, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of further proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court and it will also cause grave injustice to the parties.

¶38

13. In view of above and also in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gyan Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and in Lakhminarayan [supra] this court if of the view that end of justice will be granted when the petition is allowed.

¶39

14. Accordingly this petition stands allowed. The charge sheet No. 76/2020, dated 14.10.2020, arising out of FIR of All Women PS case No. 62/2020, under section 498[A] of IPC, pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Kantup (M), Guwahati, stands set aside and quashed. The parties have to bear their own cost.

¶40

Page No.# 6/6

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Pratap Paul Roy v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap Paul Roy 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

Madhab Bezbaruah Vs the State of Assam

Rakesh Deka Vs the State of Assam

Smt. Pinki Chetia Das @ Pinki Saikia and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Smti. Promila Tudu Vs the State of Assam

Arijit Saikia and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Ramen Saha Vs the State of Assam