Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040013192024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./164/2024 Manoj Sonar and 5 Ors Son of Shri L B Sonar, resident of C Sector, Naharlagun, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tabang Panor Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tagang Panor resident of Pangin PO and PS Pangin District Siang Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Khewai Sema Age: Occupation : Son of Late Binho Sema resident of Bobok Colony PO and PS Pangin Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Dr. Tapu Singdhu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tatin Singdhu resident of Pangin Po and PS Pangin Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Taken Mingki Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tago Mingki Page No.# 2/7 resident of Tarak village Po and PS Pangin Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Smti Yamam Mingki Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Taken Mingki resident of Tarak Village PO and PS Pangin Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Mudang Batt, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 25.03.2025 Heard Mr. M. Batt, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is a joint application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No.12/2023 arising out of Pangin P.S. Case No.01/2018 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pangin, Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 3/7 3. On 01.01.2018, Dr. Tapu Sindhu (the petitioner no.4) was working at the CHC Pangin. On that day, he was on leave and was in his official residence within the CHC complex. At about 10.30 P.M., Sri Nalem Tasar, the Medical Attendant of the CHC came to his house and told him that a person injured in a road accident was brought to the CHC and therefore, he should come and attend the patient. Though the petitioner was on leave that day, on humanitarian ground, he came out of the house for going to the CHC. On his way to the CHC, the other petitioners stopped him and assaulted him. It is alleged by the petitioner no.4 that other petitioners also caused damage to an ambulance parked within the CHC complex. The other petitioners also assaulted the ambulance driver Taken Mangki (the petitioner no.5) and his wife Smti Yayam Mangki (petitioner no.6). 4. On 15.03.2024, all the petitioners mutually settled their disputes and decided to file the present application for quashing the FIR and the subsequent criminal proceeding. Accordingly, they have filed the present application. 5. The learned counsel Mr. Butt submits that on the day of occurrence, a person was injured in a road accident and the petitioner no.4 advised the said injured person to go to a big hospital because the CHC did not have the proper facilities to provide him necessary treatment. On that day, the ambulance was not in a position to take the patient to the big hospital because of mechanical problems. The learned counsel continued by stating that the local people were emotionally charged and they caused the entire incident. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise. Page No.# 4/7 8. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, reported in (2008)4 SCC 582 has held: “We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 9. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. [(2017)9 SCC 641], the Hon,ble Apex Court has held– “(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be Page No.# 5/7 formulated; (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 10. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under 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 Page No.# 6/7 court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised 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.” 11. Coming back to the case in hand, the alleged incident was the result of expression of anger by general public for failure to take a patient to a big hospital in an ambulance. The petitioners who allegedly took part in the said incident do not have any criminal records. The persons who were allegedly assaulted, have settled their disputes. 12. Now, this Court has the reason to hold that under the given circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction in this case in future. So, allowing such a criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court, would be noting but an abuse of the Page No.# 7/7 process of the court. 13. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. 14. The criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No.12/2023 arising out of Pangin P.S. Case No.01/2018 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pangin, Arunachal Pradesh, is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant