THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF AP
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Criminal Petition stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 279, 337
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. In view of the above, the FIR dated 30.07.2022 registered as G.R. No.628/2022 arising out of Niti Vihar P.S. Case No.36/2022 under Sections 279/337of the Indian Penal Code, is set quashed and aside. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Judgment
O R D E R
11.03.2024 Heard the learned counsel Mr. C. Modi appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Page No.# 2/4 representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
This is an application jointly filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing and setting aside the FIR dated
30.07.2022 registered as G.R. No.628/2022 arising out of Niti Vihar P.S. Case No.36/2022 under Sections 279/337of the Indian Penal Code.
On 29.07.2022 at about 6.30 P.M., one Maruti Alto car hit the scooter bearing Registration No.AR-01Q-2507 from back side. The scooter belonged to the son of the informant Mr. Tasa Dulom.
The number plate of the Alto Car could not be identified at the place of occurrence because the car immediately fled away after causing the accident.
Now, Shri Takam Kabir, the owner and driver of the aforesaid Maruti Alto car, Shri Tasa Dulom, the informant and Tago Dulom, the driver of the scooter and son of Mr. Tasa Dulom have jointly filed this application stating that they have compromised the matter between themselves and they no longer want to proceed further with the aforesaid police case.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.
The guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. -versus- Bhajanlal and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Page No.# 3/4 Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In Bhajanlal (supra), the Supreme Court has cautioned that the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be sparingly used by the High Courts. The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is meant to prevent Page No.# 4/4 abuse of the process of the court.
Coming back to the case in hand, I find that under the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. Thus, it is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Operative part
In view of the above, the FIR dated 30.07.2022 registered as G.R. No.628/2022 arising out of Niti Vihar P.S. Case No.36/2022 under Sections 279/337of the Indian Penal Code, is set quashed and aside. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Criminal Petition stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 279, 337.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.