Crl.Petn./45/2024 of SPARLINGTON THONGNI AND 5 ORS. Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA on 23 August 2024

1. Shri Sparlington Thongni

2. Shri Welson Thongni3. Shri David Thongni All sons of Shri Donkupar ShangpliangR/o. Madanrting Thembasuk, ShillongEast Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

4. Shri Tenzin Tsenten, S/o. Smti Pema Tsethar.5. Shri Anshuman Thapa,S/o. (L) T.B. Thapa.6. Shri Manoj Gurung,S/o. Shri Sachin Gurung.All residents of Happy Valley, ShillongEast Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya

…. Petitioners

…. Respondent.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s): Mr. S. Marpan, Adv.For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Khan, AAG withMr. S. Sengupta, Addl. Sr. GA.

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. By this application, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR

dated 27.08.2023 lodged by the petitioner No.1 registered as MadanrtingPS Case No. 86(8) of 2023 under Section 323/324/34 IPC and thesubsequent proceeding resultant thereto, bearing GR Case No. 94(A)2023 pending before the court of The Judicial Magistrate First Class,Shillong.

2. The brief fact of the case is that a written FIR dated 27.08.2023was lodged before the Officer-In-Charge of Madanrting Police Station,Shillong by the petitioner No. 1 to the effect that his brothers i.e, thepetitioner No. 2 and 3 were physically assaulted by the petitioners No. 4,5 and 6 at around 7:30 PM on 26.08.2023. On the basis of the said FIR,the Madanrting PS Case No. 86(8)2023 under Section 323/324/34 IPCwas registered against the petitioners No. 4, 5 and 6 and the matter wasinvestigated into. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheetbearing No. 30/2023 dated 20.08.2023 was filed under the aforesaidSections of law basing on which GR Case No. 94(A) 2023 was initiatedagainst the petitioners No. 4, 5 and 6. During the course of theinvestigation, the matter was compromised between the parties and acompromise deed dated 11.09.2023 was executed between the petitionerNo. 1 and the petitioner No.4 and a petition dated 13.09.2023 forwithdrawal of the FIR was also filed. Despite the compromise, the chargesheet was filed and the matter proceeded against the petitioners No. 4, 5and 6. The petitioners have also filed a joint application before the TrialCourt with a prayer to compound the offences, but the learned Trial Courtvide order dated 02.05.2024 was not inclined to allow such prayer on theground that Section 324 IPC is non-compoundable. The petitioners haveearlier approached this High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC by filing theCriminal Petition No. 34 of 2024, however, the same was withdrawn on 15.07.2024 with a liberty to file afresh as the petitioners No. 2, 3, 5 and 6were not signatories to the compromise deed. To affirm the settlementalready arrived at in the previous compromise deed, the petitioners havejointly executed a fresh deed of settlement/compromise dated 24.07.2024and thereafter have approached this Court by way of this present petitionseeking quashing of the FIR and the proceeding pending before the TrialCourt.

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 existence of present peacefuland harmonious atmosphere between them. He submits that all thepetitioners were of very young age at the time of the alleged incident andthe FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding and differencebetween the petitioners which has now been resolved. He submits that thedispute referred to in the FIR 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 petitioners. The learned counsel submits thatconsidering the adverse impact which might result in from thecontinuation of the further proceedings of the criminal case, thepetitioners have no other option but to approached this Court for givingeffect to the compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties. In thefact and situation of the matter, he prays that the proceeding before theTrial Court may be quashed.

4. Mr. K. Khan, learned AAG appearing for the State respondent has no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

5. In the decision of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC466, the Apex Court held that under Section 482 Cr.PC, the High Courthas inherent power to quash the criminal proceeding even in those caseswhich are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matterbetween themselves except in cases which involve heinous and seriousoffence of mental depravity or offence like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. andsuch offences, which are not private in nature and have a serious impactin society.

6. A perusal of the material on record of the present matter revealsthat due to some short-term dispute and differences between petitioners,the FIR dated 27.08.2023 was filed by 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. There is nothing to show that the incident alleged in the FIR hasresulted in causing any grievous hurt to anyone. The narration of incidentin the FIR and the charge sheet in question is found purely personalwithout projection of any mental depravity on the part of the petitionersNo. 4, 5 and 6. The compromise deed dated 24.07.2024 executed andsigned by all the petitioners makes it clear that the parties have settledtheir grievances amicably without any force, coercion, threat, lure andundue influence from any quarter. In the compromise, it is also agreedbetween the parties that they shall at all times maintain peace and cordialrelation among each other and further undertook not to stir or create anycommunal hatred against each other in any manner.

7. Since the allegation made in the matter does not involve anyserious and heinous offence, keeping in mind the law laid down by theApex Court in the decisions aforementioned, the petitioners have madeout a case for quashing of the proceeding pending before the Trial Court.

8. In view of the above, the further proceeding of the G.R. Case No.94(A) 2023 under Section 323/324/34 IPC pending before the court ofThe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong arising out of FIR dated27.08.2023 lodged by the petitioner No.1 is hereby quashed.

9. The criminal petition stands allowed.

Judge

Meghalaya

23.08.2024

“N.Swer, Stenographer, Gr-II”