Lokesh Rasaily Vs. State of Sikkim and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1115966
CourtSikkim High Court
Decided OnSep-21-2012
Case NumberCrl. M.C. No. 6 of 2012
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PERMOD KOHLI
AppellantLokesh Rasaily
RespondentState of Sikkim and Another
Excerpt:
1. mr. s.k. chettri, learned asstt. public prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, who is present in court, accepts notice. 2. with the consent of the parties present in the court, this petition is being disposed of. 3. the petitioner seeks quashment of g.r.case no. 11/2011 under section 326 ipc pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate, east and north sikkim at gangtok. it is contended that the petitioner was married to respondent no.2. the couple resided together for quite some time and thereafter due to some misunderstanding their relations became strained. respondent no.2 left the company of the petitioner and stayed with her parents. respondent no.2 lodged a written complaint on 20-11-2010 against the petitioner, whereupon an fir no. 102 (11) 10 dated 20-11-2010 under section 326 ipc was registered against the petitioner and a g.r. case no. 11/2011 has been filed in the court of chief judicial magistrate, east and north sikkim at gangtok. 4. in the meantime, respondent no.2 also filed two cases before the family court, special division-i, sikkim registered as f.c.(civil) case no.65/2011 seeking divorce and f.c. (crl.) case no. 23/2011 for grant of maintenance. during pendency of litigation, the parties reconciled with the intervention and counselling of the family court and other friends. 5. it seems that better sense prevailed and they amicably settled all their differences. the respondent no. 2 has withdrawn both the cases viz. f.c.(civil) case no.65/2011 for divorce and f.c.(crl.) case no.23/2011 for maintenance from the family court on the basis of such compromise. the 3rd case being registered as an fir and instituted on police report, the offence being non-compoundable, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of criminal proceedings pending against him. the respondent no.2 has also filed an affidavit dated 6-8-2012 (annexure-4) before this court stating therein that the parties have entered into a mutual compromise and are residing together. she has further stated that she does not want to pursue the g.r. case against the petitioner, her husband. 6. i have perused the documents on record, particularly, affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 and the order passed by the chief judicial magistrate, east and north sikkim at gangtok on the withdrawal application of the respondent no.2. it has been noticed that the parties have mutually settled their differences and disputes whereupon the cases have been withdrawn by the respondent no.2. 7. admittedly, the disputes are between the husband and wife. the couple has reconciled and resolved their differences. they are happily residing together as stated by them in open court. it is for the happiness of the couple and the entire family that the criminal proceedings be also terminated. even though the offence under section 326 ipc is non-compoundable, however, in view of the mutual settlement between the parties, it is desirable that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner be quashed, particularly when respondent no.2 also desires so. 8. powers of this court to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in such cases is no more res-integra having been settled by honble supreme court in the case of b.s. joshi and others v. state of haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 scc 675 : (2003 cri lj 2028). in a recent case reported as air 2012 sc 499: (2012 cri lj 840) : shiji alias palppu and ors. v. radhika and anr., the honble supreme court examined almost the entire law on the subject and has reiterated that the high court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c. is competent to quash the criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences on the basis of mutual settlement between the parties, particularly, where the high court is of the opinion that the quashment would be in the larger interest of the parties and for maintenance of peace. 9. keeping in view the mutual settlement between the parties and the law laid down by the honble supreme court, this petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate, east and north at gangtok in g.r.case no.11/2011 under section 326 ipc are hereby quashed.
Judgment:

1. Mr. S.K. Chettri, learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, who is present in Court, accepts notice.

2. With the consent of the parties present in the Court, this petition is being disposed of.

3. The petitioner seeks quashment of G.R.Case No. 11/2011 under Section 326 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok. It is contended that the petitioner was married to respondent No.2. The couple resided together for quite some time and thereafter due to some misunderstanding their relations became strained. Respondent No.2 left the company of the petitioner and stayed with her parents. Respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint on 20-11-2010 against the petitioner, whereupon an FIR No. 102 (11) 10 dated 20-11-2010 under Section 326 IPC was registered against the petitioner and a G.R. Case No. 11/2011 has been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok.

4. In the meantime, respondent No.2 also filed two cases before the Family Court, Special Division-I, Sikkim registered as F.C.(Civil) Case No.65/2011 seeking divorce and F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 23/2011 for grant of maintenance. During pendency of litigation, the parties reconciled with the intervention and counselling of the Family Court and other friends.

5. It seems that better sense prevailed and they amicably settled all their differences. The respondent No. 2 has withdrawn both the cases viz. F.C.(Civil) Case No.65/2011 for divorce and F.C.(Crl.) Case No.23/2011 for maintenance from the Family Court on the basis of such compromise. The 3rd case being registered as an FIR and instituted on police report, the offence being non-compoundable, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of criminal proceedings pending against him. The respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit dated 6-8-2012 (Annexure-4) before this Court stating therein that the parties have entered into a mutual compromise and are residing together. She has further stated that she does not want to pursue the G.R. Case against the petitioner, her husband.

6. I have perused the documents on record, particularly, affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok on the withdrawal application of the respondent No.2. It has been noticed that the parties have mutually settled their differences and disputes whereupon the cases have been withdrawn by the respondent No.2.

7. Admittedly, the disputes are between the husband and wife. The couple has reconciled and resolved their differences. They are happily residing together as stated by them in open Court. It is for the happiness of the couple and the entire family that the criminal proceedings be also terminated. Even though the offence under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable, however, in view of the mutual settlement between the parties, it is desirable that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner be quashed, particularly when respondent No.2 also desires so.

8. Powers of this Court to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in such cases is no more res-integra having been settled by Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 : (2003 Cri LJ 2028). In a recent case reported as AIR 2012 SC 499: (2012 Cri LJ 840) : Shiji alias Palppu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr., the Honble Supreme Court examined almost the entire law on the subject and has reiterated that the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is competent to quash the criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences on the basis of mutual settlement between the parties, particularly, where the High Court is of the opinion that the quashment would be in the larger interest of the parties and for maintenance of peace.

9. Keeping in view the mutual settlement between the parties and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, this petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North at Gangtok in G.R.Case No.11/2011 under Section 326 IPC are hereby quashed.