Allowed

Tagru Tama and Anr. v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC7 Mar 2023Crl.Petn./26/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, husband and wife, sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC based on an amicable settlement. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet No. 66/2020 and related proceedings set aside and quashed.

What the court decided

Tagru Tama and Anr. Vs the State of Ap — Matrimonial and Divorce | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040002532023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn. 26/2023

¶5

1:Tagru Tama and Anr. S/o Shri Tagru Taha,

¶6

Permanent Resident of Village Nyomin, PO/PS Tali, District Kra Dadi, Arunachal Pradesh. Mobile No. 9383033485

¶7

2: Tagru Para W/o Shri Tama Tagru Permanent Resident of Village Nyomin PO/PS Tali District Kra Dadi Arunachal Pradesh. Mobile No. 961520385

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:THE STATE OF AP Through the Public Prosecutor.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : D Yoka

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶12

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 07-03-2023

¶15

Heard Ms. D. Yoka, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Ete,

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶18

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing of the Charge-sheet no. 66/2020, under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC, in connection with G.R. Case No. 331/20, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Itanagar, Capital Complex, Yupia, which had arisen out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 38/2020, under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC, contending that the accused/petitioner no. 1 and the complainant/petitioner no. 2 are husband and wife, who have settled their differences amicably by a Deed of Settlement agreement entered into between the parties on 13.09.2022 at Yupia (Annexure-IV).

¶19

Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 38/2020, under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC was registered on an F.I.R., dated 27.05.2020, lodged by the petitioner no. 2 against the petitioner no. 1 before the Officer-in-charge, Nirjuli Police Station, which was subsequently, forwarded to Itanagar Women Police Station, alleging that the petitioner no. 1 had hit on the head of the petitioner no. 2 with a sharp object and injured the body. On completion of the investigation, a Charge-sheet, dated 30.10.2020, under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC, was filed before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the Investigation Officer by a forwarding letter, dated 23.11.2020.

¶20

Though by an order of this Court, dated 24.02.2023, the trial of the G.R. Case No. 331/20, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, was stayed, the LCR of the G.R. Case No. 331/20, was not called for by this Court.

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

Ms. Yoka, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that Charges under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC has been framed by the learned Court below against the accused petitioner no. 1 and the trial of the G.R. Case No. 331/20 has commenced. She further submits that since the accused and the complainant are husband and wife having 5 (five) minor children who have amicably resolved the differences by a Deed of Settlement agreement, dated 13.09.2022, the criminal proceeding pending against the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, be quashed.

¶23

Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that considering the fact that the case pending trial before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, is between the husband and a wife and since, both the petitioners who are husband and wife have settled their differences by a Deed of Settlement, dated 13.09.2022, he has no objection if the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner no. 1/accused is quashed by this Court in exercise of Power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also taking note of the fact that the petitioners, who are the accused and the complainant, are husband and wife, having 5 (five) minor children and the differences between them have been amicably resolved by a Deed of Settlement, dated 13.09.2022 and also having taken note of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others , reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein, it has been held that in a case arising out of matrimonial dispute, where the parties have amicably resolved their differences, the Court in exercise of power under Section

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may quash the criminal proceeding, this criminal petition is allowed.

¶27

Accordingly, the the Charge-sheet No. 66/2020, under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC, in connection with G.R. Case No. 331/20, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Itanagar, Capital Complex, Yupia, which had arisen out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 38/2020, under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC, is hereby set aside and quashed.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Tagru Tama and Anr. v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Tagru Tama and Anr. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rimmar Taso Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Tajik Gyamar Vs the State of Ap

Sinyum Game Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Neelam Kapa Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

M/s T.T. Enterprises Vs Neelam Kapa and 4 Ors.

Anna Gamoh Vs the State of Ap