Quashing of an FIR for a fatal road accident where a motorcycle hit an ITBP truck from behind. The informant settled with the truck driver and post-mortem showed accidental death. Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the court quashed the FIR.
FIR being Doimukh P.S. Case No. 78/2023 under Sections 279/304(A)/337 IPC quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC040006222024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : Crl.Petn./60/2024
Ainul Hoque and Anr
Son of Ismile Ali, resident of Nadika Village, PO and PS Bhipuria, Lakhimpur District, Assam
2: Sandeep Singh Age: Occupation:
S/o. Shri Bhag Singh, resident of VPO Dhaliapa, PO-Dhawara & PS-Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, presently residing at M.T. Driver. 31 BN ITBP, Yupia.
VERSUS
The State of AP represented by the PP of AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : Pritam Taffo, M. Karbak, E. Menjo
Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
ORDER
Date : 05-06-2024
Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
Page No.# 3/7
motorcycle at a very high speed without driving license and wearing helmet. The petitioner no. 1 has forgiven the petitioner no. 2 and agreed to resolve the matter amicably and executed an agreement between them on 13.05.2024. It is contended that the petitioner no. 1 has no grievances against the petitioner no. 2.
Page No.# 4/7
proper enquiry found that it was the fault of his deceased brother, who was riding the bike in a rash and negligent manner without having driving license and wearing helmet. The informant had filed the F.I.R. in a moment of emotional outburst, anger and distress due to sudden death of his brother in the accident.
“15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having
Page No.# 5/7
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under
Page No.# 6/7
investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”
Page No.# 7/7
Supreme Court, referred to hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the present case is one of the cases where the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, 1973 is fit to be invoked for quashing the F.I.R.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR in Doimukh P.S. Case No. 78/2023 under Sections 279/304(A)/337 IPC could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of settlement between the informant and the accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Laxmi NarayanApplied¶11
(2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Ainul Hoque
Sandeep Singh
The State of AP represented by the PP of AP
Kardak Ete
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
