THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

DATED : 4

th

September, 2025

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SINGLE BENCH : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MAD AN RAI, JUDGE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No.06 of 2025

Petitioners : Devendra Sharma and Another

versus

Respondent : State of Sikkim

Application under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance

Mr. Dewen Sharma Luitel and Mr. Bhaichung Bhutia, Advocat es for

the Petitioners.

Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Public Prosecutor for the State -

Respondent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Both Petitioners, by filing the instant Petition, seek

quashing of the FIR No.08 of 2023, dated 18 -04-2023, registered

against the Petitioner No.1 before the Ranipool Police Station, under

Sections 354-B, 354-D, 341, 323 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short, “IPC”), on the basis of the Complaint lodged by the

Petitioner No.2 and the consequent G.R. Case No.155 of 2024 before

the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Gangtok.

2. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for both Petitioners

that, on completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet was submitted by

the Investigating Officer before the Court of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, at Gangtok, who registered it as GR Case No.155 of

2024 (State of Sikkim vs. Devendra Sharma) and took cognizance of

the offences against the Petitioner No.1 on 02-09-2024 under the

aforementioned Sections. Charges have been framed again st the

Crl.M.C. No.06 of 2025 2

Devendra Sharma and Another vs. State of Sikkim

Petitioner No.1 under Sections 354-B, 354-D, 323, 341 and 509 of

the IPC, against which the Petitioner No.1 entered a plea of “not

guilty” and claimed trial. During the pendency of the GR Case

before the said Magisterial Court, on 11-08-2025 the Petitioners

voluntarily and without any duress, settled their dispute amicably

and executed a Compromise Deed on the sa me date. The Petitioner

No.2 declared therein that, she did not seek to further prosecute the

Petitioner No.1 in any manner, on the disputed issue, which had

giving rise to the FIR. The Petitioner No.2 had of her own volition,

agreed to compromise the matter as over the years she shared

cordial relations with the Petitioner No.1 and his mother, and did not

want it to deteriorate into an acrimonious relationship. That, in view

of the above circumstances, this Court may quash the FIR and also

the GR Case pending disposal before the Court of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Gangtok. The Compromise Deed is supported by an

Affidavit sworn by the Petitioner No.2. To buttress his submissions,

reliance was placed on Shiji alias Pappu and Others vs. Radhika and

Another

1

; Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anothe r

2

; Yogendra Yadav

and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Another

3

; Pema Chultim Bhutia

and Others vs. State of Sikkim

4

; Tshwang Norbu Sherpa and Others vs.

State of Sikkim

5

; Mithun Sah and Others vs. State of Sikkim

6

; and Nilu

Thapa and Another vs. State of Sikkim

7

.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor while drawing the attention of

this Court to the Compromise Deed alleged to have been effected

between the parties, expressed the concern that , the Deed of

1

(2011) 10 SCC 705

2

(2012) 10 SCC 303

3

(2014) 9 SCC 653

4

2022 SCC OnLine Sikk 8

5

2015 SCC OnLine Sikk 49

6

2017 SCC Online Sikk 79

7

2020 SCC OnLine Sikk 8

Crl.M.C. No.06 of 2025 3

Devendra Sharma and Another vs. State of Sikkim

Compromise only casts a burden on the Petitioner No.2 who i s the

First Party in the said Deed while the Petitioner No.1 apparently has

no responsibility in giving a quietus to the issue. That, the

compromise in all probability appears to have been entered into

under duress and threat to the Petitioner No.2 and hence, he

submits that the circumstances of the compromise being suspicious,

the instant Petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Opposing arguments of Learned Counsel were heard at

length and given due consideration. I have also carefully perused

the pleadings.

5. As pointed out by Learned Public Prosecutor, it appears

that the Compromise Deed is indeed lopsided with all responsibility

foisted on the Petitioner No.2 to ensure that the conditions

mentioned therein are only complied with by her. No responsibility

vests on the Petitioner No.1 in terms of the Compromise Deed. The

First Party in the Compromise Deed is the Petitioner No.2 herein

(Complainant) and the Second Party is the Petitioner No.1 herein

(Accused). The relevant portions of the Compromise De ed, dated

11-08-2025, are extracted hereinbelow;

“………………………………………………………………………………

1. That, the FIRST PARTY shall withdraw his (sic)

FIR, bearing Ranipool P.S. Case FIR no.08 of

2023, dated 18.04.2023 and the FIRT S (sic)

PARTY shall not further prosecute the SECOND

PARTY in any manner, in consequence of

execution of this instant “Deed of Compromise”.

2. That, the FIRST PARTY shall not make any claim

against the SECOND PARTY, if any arising out of

the Ranipool P.S. Case FIR no.08 of 2023, dated

18.04.2023 against the SECOND PARTY and GR

case no.155/2024 pending before the Court of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim at

Gangtok.

3. The FIRST PARTY shall personally appear before

the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, East

Sikkim at Gangtok, on the requ ired date to

personally declare that she has no claims with

the SECOND PARTY and further had amicably

Crl.M.C. No.06 of 2025 4

Devendra Sharma and Another vs. State of Sikkim

settled the dispute/grievances and would like to

withdraw their complaint registered as Ranipool

P.S. Case FIR no.08 of 2023 with the SECOND

PARTY as she do not want to prosecute the

SECOND PARTY any further in the GR Case

no.155 of 2024.

4. That, both the parties shall personally appear on

the required date before the Hon’ble High Court

of Sikkim at Gangtok to make the prayer for the

quashing of the Ranipool PS FIR no. 08 of 2023

and also the GR Case no. 155 of 2024 which is

pending before the Hon’ble CJM, East Sikkim at

Gangtok in the light of the amicable settlement

of every grievances and disputes among the

parties.

5. That, it was further voluntarily agreed by the

FIRTS (sic) PARTY herein that she had executed

the instant deed with her free will and consent

and do not (sic) want to further prosecute the

SECOND PARTY before any authority/Court of

law with the allegation if any arising out of the

FIR no.08/2023 of the Ranipool Police Station

and would like to withdraw the same.

……………………………………………………………………………… ”

6. It is now settled law that exercise of powers under

Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

(hereinafter, the “BNSS”), is an exception and not the rule. Under

this provision, the High Court has inherent powers to issue such

orders as are necessary to give effect to any order under the Code

or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to

secure the ends of justice.

7. The Supreme Court in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs.

State of Maharashtra and Others

8

while discussing the provision of

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section

528 of the BNSS) observed that the expressions “abuse of process

of law” or “to secure the ends of justice” do not confer unlimited

jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of

law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with

law, including procedural law and not otherwise.

8

(2019) 18 SCC 191

Crl.M.C. No.06 of 2025 5

Devendra Sharma and Another vs. State of Sikkim

8. At this juncture, it is essential to emphasise that for

quashing the proceedings , as prayed in the instant Petition ,

meticulous analysis of the facts of taking cognizance of an offence

by the Magistrate is not essential. Appreciation of evidence is also

not permissible while exercising such inherent powers. However, if

the allegations set out in the Complaint did not constitute the

offences for which cognizance has been taken, it is open to the High

Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers.

9. In the FIR, dated 18-04-2023, the Petitioner No.2 has

alleged that the Petitioner No.1 had violated the Agreement settled

with reference to the GD No. (02) on the very next date, i.e., 18-04-

2023, at around 08.15 a.m. According to her, as she was leaving for

School, he stalked her midway and followed her till her rented room.

He then dragged her and assaulted her by pulling and dragging her

by her hair down the stairs, on account of which she bled and

sustained cuts all over her head. He also threatened all persons

who came to her aid, however as one Police personnel was passing

by, he came to assist her. The Petitioner No.1, abused the Police

personnel and threatened him and took away the phone of the

Petitioner No.2. She sought strict action against him.

10. The FIR thus reflects that there was an earlier

settlement pertaining to some dispute between the Petitioner No.1

and Petitioner No.2, which has not been revealed in the records of

the case. Thereafter, he assaulted her on 18-04-2023, in apparent

violation of the Agreement after which she lodged the FIR.

11. On the anvil of the Complaint, the Deed of Compromise

executed between the parties , of which the relevant portion is

extracted above, reveals with clarity that the compromise is one

sided and fails to do justice to the word “Compromise”. It is

Crl.M.C. No.06 of 2025 6

Devendra Sharma and Another vs. State of Sikkim

reiterated that, the Compromise Deed casts the entire burden on the

First Party, i.e., the Petitioner No.2, to keep the peace and to ensure

that no Complaint is ever lodged against the Petitioner No.1, with no

assurance from Petitioner No.1 that he would in future restrain

himself and not repeat such acts as alleged in the FIR.

12. In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others

9

the Supreme Court held that;

“103. We also give a note of caution to the

effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding

should be exercised very sparingly and with

circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases;

that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an

enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise

of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and

that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer

an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to

its whim or caprice.”

13. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am sceptical of

the circumstances under which the Deed of Compromise was

entered into between the Petitioners. From a reading of the said

Deed, I am not convinced that the Petitioner No.2 arrived at the

conditions set out therein of her own volition. From the language

employed it cannot be ruled out that duress and threats were held

out to the Petitioner No.2 by the Petitioner No.1 in the making of the

Compromise Deed.

14. Consequently, I am not inclined to grant the prayers for

quashing of the FIR and the resultant GR Case before the Chief

Judicial Magistrate.

15. Crl.M.C. stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

( Meenakshi Madan Rai )

Judge

04-09-2025

Approved for reporting : Yes

ds/sdl

9

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335