Allowed

Panpha Wangjen v. the State of Ap and Anr.

Gauhati HC28 Apr 2022Crl.Petn./22/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of an FIR involving traffic negligence and causing death. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that since the dispute was amicably settled with compensation paid and the victim withdrew the complaint, starting the trial would be an abuse of process and cause injustice.

What did the court decide?

FIR Case No. 10/2019 under Sections 279/304(A) IPC registered at Kanubari P.S. is set aside and quashed.

Panpha Wangjen Vs the State of Ap and Anr. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC040002982022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn. 22/2022

¶5

1:Panpha Wangjen S/o Nakphai Wangjen, Olingtong Village, PO and PS Kanubari, District Longding, Arunachal Pradesh

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF AP and Anr. Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

2:Noksey Lowang Son of Late Tuwang Lowang

¶9

Lamlo Village PO and PS Deomali District Tirap Arunachal Prades

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : D K Deori

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : L. Hage, Addl. P P of AP

¶12

D. Moidam

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 28-04-2022

¶17

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by Shri Panpha Wangjen, S/o Nakphai Wangjen, Village-Olingtong P.O/P.S.-

¶18

Page No.# 2/6

¶19

Kanubari, District-Longding for quashing FIR of Kanubari P.S. Case No.10/2019, dated 14.04.2019 under Sections 279/304(A) IPC.

¶20

2. It is to be noted here that aforementioned FIR has been registered against the respondent No.2 on the basis of one complaint lodged by Shri Panpha Wangjen on 14.04.2019.

¶21

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

¶22

“On 14.04.2019, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Kanubari Police Station to the effect that at around 3.30 PM, his brother Sri Mnwan Wangjen had been rolled over by Mr. Noksey Lowang (A.S.I.) Kanubari Police Station and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the Officer-in-Charge, Kanubari Police Station registered Kanubari P.S. Case No.10/2019, under Section 279/304(A) IPC and investigated the same. The investigation culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet, dated 01.08.2019, before the Court of learned JMFC, Longding against the respondent No. 2 to stand trial in the Court under Section 279/304(A) IPC. While the case was pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Longding, the petitioner and the respondent No., 2 have settled the matter amicably and the respondent No. 2 has paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) only, as compensation to the petitioner and on the basis of the said settlement deed,

¶23

Page No.# 3/6

¶24

dated 24.02.2022, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing the proceeding against the respondent No.2”.

¶25

3. Heard Mr. D. K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP for the State respondent as well as Mr. D. Moidam, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2.

¶26

4. Mr. D. K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the settlement deed/deed of compromise, which is enclosed with the petition as Annexure-5, submits that the petitioner and the respondent no.2 have already settled their dispute amicably and the respondent no. 2 has paid a sum of Rs. Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) only as compensation to the petitioner and therefore, Mr. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioner contended to allow the petition.

¶27

5. Mr. D. Moidam, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 subscribed the submission made by Mr. D. K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs. Rs.7,00,000/(Rupees Seven Lakhs) only being the compensation.

¶28

6. Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP also submits that since the matter has amicably been settled on a deed of compromise, the State has no objection in the event of allowing the petition.

¶29

7. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record.

¶30

Page No.# 4/6

¶31

8. From a cursory perusal of the deed of settlement dated, 24.02.2022, Annexure-5, original copy of which, is produced before this court today, it appears that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 compromised the matter and the petitioner intends to withdraw the complaint made against the respondent No. 2 as all the disputes between them have been resolved. Further, it appears that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, put their respective signatures, in the settlement deed in presence of witnesses. Further, it appears that the case was registered under Section 279/304 (A) IPC and Charge-Sheet has been submitted against the respondent No.2 under the said section of law. The offences are also not so serious and the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 279 IPC is imprisonment for 6 months or fine of Rs.1,000/- or both and for the offence under Section 304 (A) IPC is imprisonment for 2 years or fine or both.

¶32

8. In the case of Gian Singh-vs-State of Punjab and Another , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation, but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. It is also held that criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be quashed where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. Before exercising of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. It also held that criminal cases, having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

flavour, stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash the criminal proceedings, if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

¶35

9. Since the parties here in this case have settled their entire dispute amicably and no longer willing to proceed with the case, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be meted out, if the petition is allowed. Else, it will cause immense hardship to the respondent No. 2. Further, since the matter has entirely been resolved, it is unlikely that the petitioner will depose against the respondent No. 2. In the event of allowing the proceeding to continue before the learned Court below, and in that event, it will be an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶36

10. Considering the above, and also considering the submissions of the learned Advocates of both sides, this Criminal petition stands allowed. The FIR of Kanubari P.S. Case No. 10/2019, dated 14.04.2019, under Sections 279/304(A) IPC pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Longding

¶37

Page No.# 6/6

¶38

stands set aside and quashed.

¶39

The parties have to bear their own cost(s).

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Panpha Wangjen v. the State of Ap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panpha Wangjen v. the State of Ap 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

Kara Taling Vs the State of Ap

Dugi Nap @ Yomum Vs the State of Ap

Likha Yel @ Amu Vs the State of Ap

Tarh Tugung @ Koyu Vs Ngurang Taka

M/S T.G Enterprises and Anr. Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

David Messar Vs the State of Ap