Meghalaya High Court
Crl.Petn./33/2024 of GESPER LANGSTIEH AND ANR. Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. on 19 August 2024
Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. Petn. No. 33 of 2024 Date of Decision: 19.08.2024 1.Shri Gesper Langstieh Vs. 1. State of Meghalaya, Rep. by S/o. Shri S. Marbaniang, The Secretary Department of R/o. Mawngap (Mawkharshiing) Home (Police), Government of East Khasi Hills
Serial No. 18 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYAAT SHILLONG
Crl. Petn. No. 33 of 2024
Date of Decision: 19.08.2024
1.Shri Gesper Langstieh Vs. 1. State of Meghalaya, Rep. by S/o. Shri S. Marbaniang, The Secretary Department of R/o. Mawngap (Mawkharshiing) Home (Police), Government of East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya Meghalaya.
2. Smti Mumskiolin Jana
2. The Superintendent of Police
W/o. Shri ElianPyngrope,R/o. Nongrah, PS, Rynjah, ShillongEast Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
…. Petitioners
…. Opposite Parties
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s): Mr. S. Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s)
: Mr. S. Kumaresan, AAG with
Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of GRCase No.65 of 2015 arising out of Shillong Sadar PS Case No.24(02)2015 under Section 354/354A/323/506 IPC pending before theSubordinate District Council Court, Shillong on the basis of a compromise/settlement between the petitioner No.1 and the petitionerNo.2.
2. The brief fact of the case is that a written FIR dated 31.01.2015was lodged by the petitioner No.2 alleging that the petitioner No.1 hadmisbehaved and assaulted her and her sister at Jamballa point nearMawngap Taxi Stand, Bara Bazar, Shillong on 31.01.2015. On the basisof the FIR, the Shillong Sadar PS Case No. 24(02)2015 under Section354/354A/323/506 IPC was registered and investigated into. On thecompletion of the investigation, a charge sheet vide C/S No. 27/2015dated 03.03.2015 was filed and a criminal proceeding under the aforesaidsection of law was initiated against the petitioner No.1 in the SubordinateDistrict Council Court, Shillong. During the pendency of the matter, thedispute between the parties has been settled and a compromise/settlementdated 09.04.2024 was entered into between the petitioner No.1 and 2.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitionershave settled the matter amicably and voluntary without any force, threator coercion and do not want to disturb the peaceful and harmoniousatmosphere being the members of the same community as well as sameplace of work. He submits that the FIR was lodged due to somemisunderstanding and difference between the petitioners which has nowbeen resolved. The dispute was purely personal and private withouthaving any bearing in the society. He further submits that continuance ofthe criminal proceeding in the matter may not be in the best interest ofjustice rather may be detrimental to existence of harmonious and peacefulrelation between the petitioner No.1 and 2. The learned counsel submitsthat since Section 354/354A IPC are non-compoundable, the petitioners have no other option but to approached this Court for giving effect to thecompromise/settlement arrived into between the parties. He placesreliance on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 6 SSC 466,Narinder Singh & Ors. vs State of Punjab & Anr.,(2014) 9 SSC 653,Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. and (2022) 14 SCC531, Ramgopal & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and submits thatHigh Court has the power and authority under Section 482 Cr.PC toquash proceeding on the basis of settlement, even if the offence chargedwith are non-compoundable.
4. The learned AAG appearing for the State does not dispute thesettlement between the petitioner No.1 and 2. He also does not dispute theproposition of law cited by the petitioner and in his usual fairness has leftthe matter on the discretion of this Court.
5. A perusal of the material on record reveals that due to some disputeand differences between petitioner No.1 and 2, the FIR dated 31.01.2015was filed by the petitioner No.2 against the petitioner No.1. Theallegations made in the FIR as well as the narration of facts made in thecharge sheet does not show involvement of any serious offence in thematter. The occurrence in question is found purely personal withoutprojection of any mental depravity of the petitioner No.1. Thecompromise deed dated 09.04.2024 between the petitioner No.1 and 2makes it clear that the parties have settled their grievances amicablywithout any force, coercion, threat, lure and undue influence from anyquarter.
6. This Court is convinced that the offences involved in the presentmatter are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. Furthermore, there is enough indication that the quashing ofthe criminal proceeding will advance peace, harmony and would secureends of justice as the parties have decided to forget and forgive ill willand have no vengeance against each other.
7. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitionersclearly lay down that the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC can quashcriminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers, even if theoffences are not compoundable.
8. In view of the settled position of law and discussions made above,the further proceeding of GR Case No. 65 of 2015 arising out of ShillongSadar PS Case No. 24(02)2015 under Section 354/354A/323/506 IPCpending before the Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong is herebyquashed.
9. The criminal petition stands allowed.
Judge
Meghalaya19.08.2024 “N.Swer, Stenographer, Gr-II”