Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040012972024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./161/2024 Nabam Tania and Anr Son of Late Nabam Kameng, resident of D Sector, Nirjuli near Director of Veterinary Office, PO and PS Nirjuli, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Lishi Daju Age: Occupation : Son of Lishi Tada permanent resident of Miya Village PO and PS Yachuli and District Keyi Panyor Arunachal Prades VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : S Tada, T Sorang,Taja Garam,S Tashik Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 11-02-2025 Heard Ms B. Mema, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/6 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 jointly filed by the petitioners praying for quashment of the G.R. Case No. 86/2005 under Section 279/337 IPC read with Section 182 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia on the basis of settlement. 3. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 23.05.2005, a written FIR was lodged by one Shri Nabam Tania of Arang village to the effect that on 23.05.2005 at around 1815 hours when he was proceeding towards Nirjuli from Naharlagun along with his wife and 3 years old son, one truck bearing registration No.AR-06/0104 driven by one Shri Lishi Daju hit his motor cycle bearing registration No.AR-01-A/9113 at Konkar Nallah bridge and dragged 3 of them, which has caused serious injuries. 4. Upon receipt of the above FIR, a case was registered being Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 77/2005 under Section 279/337 IPC read with Section 182 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner No.2 under Section 279/337 IPC read with Section 182 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 5. Records revealed that the criminal proceeding is pending at the stage of evidence as on today. All prosecution witnesses have been examined except the Investigating Officer. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners have entered into a Deed of Settlement on 17.09.2024, thereby, they have settled the matter amicably without there Page No.# 3/6 being any coercive, influence or threat. The settlement has been entered to maintain cordial relationship between them. 6. Ms. B. Mema, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement having been made between the petitioners, the chances of conviction is bleak and remote, even if the present criminal proceeding is allowed to continue. Therefore, she submits that the criminal proceeding of G. R. Case No.86/2005 may be quashed. 7. Ms L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it appears that there was collision between the vehicles of petitioners and there is no serious injuries reported as per the medical report, and therefore, since the parties have settled the matter, she would not have any serious objection if this Court passes an order quashing the criminal proceedings in the facts of the present case. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Trial Court records. 9. Undisputably, an accident had happened on 23.05.2005 due to collision of truck driven by petitioner No.2 and bike driven by petitioner No.1. A report which was collected from the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Yupia, indicates that there was no technical defect of both the vehicles and no damage was caused. Medical report also opined that injuries were simple in nature and the wife of the petitioner No.1 sustained no injury on any part of the body. Page No.# 4/6 10. As many as 6(six) prosecution witnesses have been examined by the learned trial court out of 7 prosecution witnesses. Remaining prosecution witness is the Investigating Officer. On perusal of the deposition by the prosecution witnesses, nothing appears to have been indicted against the accused of an offences alleged. No doubt, there appears to have been a collision between the truck driven by the petitioner No.2 and bike driven by petitioner No.1, however, no serious injury was caused. That apart, the parties have entered into a settlement to maintain cordial relationship between them. The settlement has been entered into without there being any coercion, force or threat. 11. Having considered the materials available on record and considering that the parties have entered into settlement, I am of the considered view that the continuation of proceeding of G.R. Case No.86/2005 would be futile as chances of conviction are bleak and remote which would amount to abuse of process of law. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has enunciated the law on quashment of the criminal proceedings in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Lakshmi Narayan and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, which is reproduced herein below: “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or Page No.# 5/6 arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; I15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should Page No.# 6/6 be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.“ 13. Having considered the materials in the present case and the discussion made herein above, and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Lakshmi Narayan (Supra), I am of the considered view that the continuation of the present proceedings would be futile. Thus, I am inclined to quash the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No.86/2005 under Section 279/337 IPC read with Section 182 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. 14. The criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant