Allowed

Dadi Rimo and 3 Ors. v. the State of Ap and Anr.

Gauhati HC4 Aug 2022Crl.Petn./48/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a non-compoundable FIR under Sections 186 and 353 IPC. The court held that after an amicable settlement by the parties, continuing proceedings would abuse the court process and defeat the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The FIR of Seppa P.S. Case No. 01/2022 under Sections 186/353 IPC was quashed.

Dadi Rimo and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC040005152022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn. 48/2022

¶5

1:Dadi Rimo and 3 Ors. S/o Late Matung Rimo, Permanent Resident of Pampoli Village, PO/PS Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

2: Rahul Gupta Presently serving as Superintendent of Police East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

3: Ananto Boruah Presently serving as Sub Inspector Inchargeof Traffic Cell Seppa Police Station Arunachal Pradesh.

¶8

4: Sunita Nabam Presently serving as Officer In Charge Women Police Station Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1:THE STATE OF AP and Anr.

¶11

Through the Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶12

2:SIT Crime Branch Itanagar

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

PHQ Itanaga

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : G Riba

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶17

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date :04.08.2022

¶20

Heard Mr. G. Riba, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. O. Pada, learned Standing counsel SIT Crime Branch.

¶21

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred by four petitioners namely Shri Dadi Rimo, Shri Rahul Gupta, Shri Ananto Boruah & Shri Sunita Nabam jointly for quashing the FIR dated 01.01.2022 and the enquiry reported dated 03.01.2022, of Seppa P.S. Case No. 01/2022, under Sections 186/353 IPC and the corresponding G.R. Case No. 01/2022, pending against the petitioner No. 1 before the Court of learned CJM, Seppa.

¶22

The factual background leading to filing of this petition is briefly stated as under: -

¶23

“On 01.01.2022, one complaint was lodged by one Shri A. Boruah (SI), Traffic, with the Officer-in-Charge Seppa police station to the effect that on 31.12.2021 at around 11.30 pm, when the Traffic cell was performing

¶24

Page No.# 3/6

¶25

naka checking duty at PS Road Seppa then one person namely Shri Dadi Rimo was driving one scorpio vehicle under the influence of alcohol and on the request to undergo breath test by Traffic team, he turn furious and shouted repeatedly at him that he is Dadi Rimo and he is the Chairman of Medicinal Board and then the duty personnel had to use minimal force to contain his uncontrolled behavior, then Mr. Dadi Rimo had neither cooperated with the duty personnel nor undergone alcohol breath test.

¶26

Upon the said FIR one inquiry was ordered and Inspector S. Nabam of Seppa P.S had conducted enquiry and report was furnished and upon the said report of Seppa P.S. Case No. 01/2022, under Sections 186/353 IPC has been registered.

¶27

While the investigation was carried out then the parties entered into a settlement on 29.04.2022, and on the basis of the aforesaid settlement deed, they approached this Court for quashing the FIR dated 03.01.2022.

¶28

Mr. Riba, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already settled the dispute and they have entered into a settlement deed and on the basis of the said settlement deed they approached this Court for quashing the FIR of Seppa P.S. Case No. 01/2022, under Sections 186/353 IPC, being the offences are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and as the parties have settled the dispute amicably and not willing to pursue the matter further, Mr. Riba contended to quash the FIR of Seppa P.S. Case No. 01/2022 under Sections 186/353 IPC.

¶29

On the other hand, producing the Case Diary before this Court, Mr. O. Pada, learned Standing counsel SIT (Crime Branch) submits that the Crime

¶30

Page No.# 4/6

¶31

Branch has no objection in the event of allowing the petition. Mr. Pada, referring to authorization letter of petitioner No. 2 Shri Rahul Gupta dated 05.05.2022, Superintendent of Police and the authorization letter dated 05.05.2022, of Shri Ananto Boruah-petitioner No. 3 Sub-Inspector, In-Charge Traffic Cell and authorization letter dated 05.05.2022 of Smti Sunita Nabam petitioner No. 4 Officer-In-Charge Women Police Station, Seppa, also submits that they have authorized the petitioner No. 1 Shri Dadi Rimo to sign and swear an affidavit on their behalf so as to file criminal petition before this Court for quashing and setting aside the Seppa P.S. Case No. 01/2022 under Sections 186/353 IPC.

¶32

Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary produced before this Court.

¶33

It appears that Seppa P.S. Case No. 01/2022, under Sections 186/353 IPC has been registered on the basis of one enquiry report submitted by Inspector S. Nabam on the complaint lodged by one Shri Anant Boruah in connection with an incident that took place on 01.01.2022, wherein allegation is made against the petitioner No. 1 that on 31.12.2021 at around 11.30 pm while naka checking was going on at PS road Seppa, where Shri Dadi Rimo, who claim himself to be a Chairman of Medicinal Board, misbehaved with the duty personnel and he was driving one Scorpio car under the influence of liquor and refuse to undergo breath alcohol test and also he did not cooperate with duty personnel.

¶34

While the investigation was going on the petitioners have amicably settled the dispute and entered into a settlement deed on 29.04.2022, and based upon the aforesaid settlement deed they approach this Court for quashing the

¶35

Page No.# 5/6

¶36

proceeding. It also appears that the Case was registered under Sections 186/353 IPC, and it appears that both the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. And therefore, they have preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR of Seppa P.S. Case No. 01/2022 under Sections 186/353 IPC.

¶37

It also appears that the petitioners have settled the dispute amongst themselves entirely. While dealing with the issue of quashing FIR by invoking the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & others (2019) 5. SCC 688, held that the power under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court had inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶38

It is also 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:

¶39

i. Ends of justice, or

¶40

ii. To prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶41

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

¶42

It is further, held that the power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C to

¶43

Page No.# 6/6

¶44

quash the criminal proceeding for non-compoundable offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶45

Here in this case it appears from the settlement deed dated 29.04.2022 that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and as such end of justice will be mated out if the petition is allowed. And since the parties have settled their dispute among themselves, it is unlikely that the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 & 4 will depose against the petitioner No. 1 in the Court if the proceeding is allowed to continue and the chances of conviction is remote and bleak and in such situation allowing to continue the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶46

Considering above and also considering the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, this Case is of the view that this is a fit Case where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the proceeding. Accordingly, the FIR of Seppa P.S. Case No. 01/2022 under Sections 186/353 IPC stands quashed.

¶47

In the result, this petition stands allowed. The parties have to bear their own cost(s).

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Comparing Assistant

Dadi Rimo and 3 Ors. v. the State of Ap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dadi Rimo and 3 Ors. 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

Raja Rai Vs the State of Ap

Talok Ringling Vs the State of Ap

Barom Siram Vs Ogon Siram and Anr.

Charu Punung @ Ponung Vs Charu Tamam

Charu Punung @ Ponung Vs Charu Tamam

Otem Gao Vs Tapang Ering and Anr.