Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami quahed a criminal case initiated under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the present case, an FIR was filed by the respondent as the petitioner had insulted the respondent and there was a chance of her getting hit. The case was registered under the provisions of Sections 186, 353, 509 of the Penal Code, 1860. The case was initiated and the proceedings began. The Sessions Court during the proceedings held that there wasn’t enough material for the accused to be framed under Section 506 of the IPC. Hence the said petition was modified. The petitioner moved on to file a Private Complaint that was pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. To this the respondent filed a revision application in order to stop the Court from summoning her, which was promptly dismissed.
The Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Simeon Subba submitted to the Sikkim HC that the parties to the case had resolved the issues between them and a deed of compromise was simultaneously drafted that stated that the petitioner would withdraw the Private Complaint and the Respondent would not object to the petitioner’s application. Therefore the case pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate was to be quashed. The submissions by the counsel for the respondent were similar in nature.
The HC after considering both the submissions observed that the charges against the petitioner under Sections 186, 290 and 353 of the IPC were non-compoundable offences. The Sikkim HC relied to the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 where the SC held that after considering the gravity of the crime, the Court, in case of non-compoundable offences, could quash a criminal proceeding after it had deemed that the outcome of the proceeding would be fruitless. The HC also observed that since in this case the parties had amicably solved the issues within themselves, it would go against the principles of justice if the criminal proceeding were not quashed.
Krishna Lall Timsina v. Kanu Priya Rai, Crl. M.C. No. 08 of 2019
86540
103860
630
114
59824