Allowed

Elijah @ Eliza Taying and 2 Ors. v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC3 Nov 2022Crl.Petn./82/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and charge-sheet. The bench held that Section 295(A) IPC was not applicable due to the primarily private nature of the dispute and granted the petition as the matter had been amicably settled.

What did the court decide?

The Ruksin FIR Case No.31/2016 and the connected Charge-Sheet No.02/2017 are set aside and quashed.

Elijah @ Eliza Taying and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Ap — Quashing and FIR | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040008972022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn. 82/2022

¶5

1:Elijah @ Eliza Taying and 2 Ors. Son of Sri Omin Taying Resident of Ngorlung Village, PO and PS Ruksin, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

2: Yide Potom

¶7

Son of Late B Potom

¶8

Resident of Ngorlung Village PO and PS Ruksin East Siang District Arunachal Pradeshs.

¶9

3: Tajong Panyang Son of Sri Paniram Panyang

¶10

Resident of Ngorlung Village PO and PS Ruksin East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

1:THE STATE OF AP Through its Public Prosecutor

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : G Taloh

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

BEFORE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 03-11-2022

¶19

This petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred jointly by the petitioners, namely, Sri Elijah @ Eliza Taying, Sri Yide Potom and Sri Tajong Panyang for quashing and setting aside the Ruksin FIR Case No.31/2016 registered under Sections 427/447/295 (A)/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and the connected Charge-Sheet No.02/2017 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 18/2018.

¶20

2. Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶21

3. The brief facts, in a nutshell, is that an FIR was lodged by the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 on 17.09.2016 to the effect that at around 2300 hrs, the petitioner No. 1 and others of Ngorlung village barged into the Solung Celebration Festival Ground at Ruksin Bazar looking for the petitioner No. 3, the then General Secretary of the Solung Celebration Committee. The petitioner No. 1 rampaged the Festival ground and started kicking the chairs in the Festival Ground and disturbed the ponung parties and demanded the members to stop the rituals of the Solung Celebration. He also tried to snatch away the Yoksa (sword) used by the Miri (priest) and threatened to kill the petitioner No. 3 and committed criminal assault. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 lit a match stick to set ablaze the pendal. The Magistrate and the Police had to intervene to prevent further disturbance.

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

4. The FIR regarding the incident was lodged by the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 which culminated into submission of Charge-Sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 02/2017. Pursuant to filing of the FIR, a Kebang was held and according to the decision of the Kebang, a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner No. 1 and the fine was paid by the petitioner on 30.09.2016. On 02.10.2016, the Mega Solung Celebration Committee, Ruksin filed an application before the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Ruksin for withdrawal of the FIR filed against Shri Elijah Taying/ petitioner No. 1, but the FIR was already registered and prayer for withdrawal of the same was not allowed. Finally, a deed of settlement was jointly executed before the Executive Magistrate by the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties 01.08.2022.

¶24

5. I have perused the scanned copies of the LCRs. The LCRs reveal that the G.R. Case No. 18/2018 was pending for appearance of the petitioner No. 1 and the date was fixed for appearance on 31.08.2022. It is apparent that this case is at its nascent stage. This case was fixed for appearance on 31.08.2022. As the parties have amicably settled their dispute between them, the possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak.

¶25

6. Section 295 (A) of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable but it is submitted that there was no incident of outraging religious sentiment. The dispute was between petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 which flared to such an extent that it resulted in a criminal case against the petitioner No. 1. It is held that the matter is predominantly and overwhelmingly private between the parties and continuance of the same will be an abuse of the process of the Court and the petitioner No. 1 will be prejudiced as the matter is predominantly private. As the criminal case is at its nascent stage, I deem it appropriate to invoke inherent

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶28

7. Considering the above and also considering the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides, this Criminal petition stands allowed and Ruksin FIR Case No.31/2016 registered under Sections 427/447/295 (A)/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and the connected Charge-Sheet No.02/2017 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 18/2018 stands set aside and quashed.

¶29

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

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Elijah @ Eliza Taying and 2 Ors. v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elijah @ Eliza Taying and 2 Ors. v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nending Mope and Anr. Vs the State of Ap

Tapi Ronya Vs Tapi Tamang and 2 Ors.

Tsering Rakpa Namsa Vs the State of Ap

Aka Kalung Vs the State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Rinya Jokom Vs the State of Ap

Tanchung Namsa Vs the State of Ap