1

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

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

SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE

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

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

1. Pema Chultim Bhutia,

S/o Shri Thendup Bhutia,

R/o Kewzing Road, Ravangla,

P.O. & P.S. Ravangla,

South Sikkim.

2. Abdul Hussain Ahmed,

S/o Late Sadik Hussain Ahmed,

Permanent R/o Kaliabhomora,

Gotlong Gaon, Sonitpur, Assam,

At present Ravangla,

P.O. & P.S. Ravangla, South Sikkim.

3. Ajay Kumar,

S/o Ranu Mahto,

Permanent R/o Kabia, Begusarai,

P.O. Kabia, Bihar,

At present Ravangla,

P.O. & P.S. Ravangla, South Sikkim.

4. Suvratanu Halder,

S/o Tushar Kanti Halder,

Permanent R/o Nawpara, Borthe,

24 PGS, Barasat, Kolkata,

Presently at Ravangla, South Sikkim.

….. Petitioners

Versus

State of Sikkim .... Respondent

Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

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

Appearance:

Mr. Dewen Sharma Luitel, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.

Sujan Sunwar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-

respondent.

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

Date of hearing : 16.02.2022

Date of Order : 22.02.2022

2

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

O R D E R

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. This judgment shall consider the application under

section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(Cr.P.C.) filed by the petitioners jointly to quash the First

Information Report (FIR) as well as the criminal

proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner no.1 on

a complaint by the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. Heard Mr. Dewen Sharma Luitel, learned counsel for

the Petitioners as well as Mr. Yadev Sharma, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent. The

learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is a fit

case to exercise powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and

quash the criminal proceedings including the FIR in view of

the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioners

relying upon various judgments discussed herein below.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all

differences between the petitioner no.1 on the one hand

and the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 on the other have been

resolved and they have agreed to maintain a harmonious

relationship and live peacefully. The petitioner nos. 2, 3

and 4 do not want to contest the case and has no

grievances against the petitioner no.1 anymore. They have

agreed to abide by the compromise deed and move on with

3

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

their lives. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submits that in view of the compromise deed entered

between the petitioners the State-respondent has no

objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed.

3. The FIR was registered on 05.11.2019 at Rabong

Police Station. It alleged that petitioner no.1 assaulted the

petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 while they were on duty due to

which they sustained severe injuries. The FIR also alleged

that they had been threatened with dire consequences. It

further alleged that petitioner no.1 had forcefully stopped

the company vehicles of M/s S & P Infrastructure

Development (P) Limited and snatched the keys.

4. The investigation led to the filing of final report under

section 173 of the Cr.P.C. alleging commission of offences

under section 341, 323, 326 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (IPC). On 02.08.2021 the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Yangang Sub-Division, South Sikkim framed

charges against the petitioner no.1 under section 341, 323,

326 and 506 of the IPC. The orders of the learned Trial

Court reflect that the witnesses are yet to be examined.

On 10.08.2021 the learned counsel for the petitioner

no.1 submitted before the learned Trial Court that the

petitioners were on the verge of settlement of their

4

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

disputes and would approach this court for quashing the

FIR.

5. A compromise deed dated 07.08.2021 has been filed

along with this petition entered between the petitioners in

which it is stated that after the intervention of family

members, friends and well wishers of all the parties who

are well known to each other , they have reached an

amicable settlement. It is stated that since they have

compromised the matter the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 does

not desire to press the charges against the petitioner no.1

and they do not have any objection if this court annuls the

FIR and the criminal proceeding pursuant thereto.

6. Section 341, 323 and 506 of the IPC are

compoundable offences. Section 341 IPC is compoundable

by the person restrained or confined. Section 323 IPC is

compoundable by the person to whom the hurt is caused.

Section 506 IPC is compoundable by the person

intimidated. In the present case the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and

4 who are the complainant are personally present in court

and state that they have compromised the case with the

petitioner no.1 which is recorded in the compromise deed

as well.

7. Section 326 IPC is a non-compoundable offence. The

charge against the petitioner no.1 is that he had voluntarily

5

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

caused grievous hurt to petitioner no.2 by slapping and

punching him. Although the trial is yet to begin, the

medical report of the petitioner no.2 filed along with the

final report suggests that he was bleeding from the nose

and had diminished hearing from the left ear. The report

suggests that the petitioner no.2 had suffered moderate

hearing loss (sensorineural hearing loss) of the left ear

because of which the report suggested that the injury was

grievous in nature.

8. Mr. Dewen Sharma Luitel, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand

1

to urge before this

court that in view of the compromise deed FIR could be

quashed. In Yogendra Yadav (supra) there were two cross

FIRs. The first FIR alleged commission of offences under

section 341, 323, 324, 504 and 307 read with section 34 of

the IPC. The second FIR alleged commission of offences

under section 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323 and 380 of the

IPC. In both cases charge-sheets were submitted after

investigation and while the cases were going on the parties

agreed to compromise. A panchayat was held with the

intervention of well wishers and compromise petition

signed. Pursuant thereto an application was filed under

1

(2014) 9 SCC 653

6

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

section 231 (2) read with section 311 of the Cr.P.C. As

section 324, 341 and 323 of the IPC were compoundable

offences and section 326, 307 read with section 34 IPC

were non-compoundable the application for compounding

was accepted but the prayer for compounding the non -

compoundable offences was rejected by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court had dismissed

the challenge to the order of the learned Additional

Sessions Judge. The matter then reached the Supreme

Court which held:

“4. Now, the question before this Court

is whether this Court can compound the

offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC

which are non-compoundable? Needless to

say that offences which are non -

compoundable cannot be compounded by the

court. Courts draw the power of compounding

offences from Section 320 of the Code. The

said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian

Singh v. State of Punjab [Gian Singh v. State

of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC

(Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2

SCC (L&S) 988] ). However, in a given case,

the High Court can quash a criminal

proceeding in exercise of its power under

Section 482 of the Code having regard to the

fact that the parties have amicably settled

their disputes and the victim has no objection,

even though the offences are non -

compoundable. In which cases the High Court

can exercise its discretion to quash the

proceedings will depend on facts and

circumstances of each case. Offences which

involve moral turpitude, grave offences like

rape, murder, etc. cannot be effaced by

quashing the proceedings because that will

have harmful effect on the society. Such

offences cannot be said to be restricted to two

individuals or two groups. If such offences are

quashed, it may send wrong signal to the

society. However, when the High Court is

convinced that the offences are e ntirely

7

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

personal in nature and, therefore, do not

affect public peace or tranquillity and where it

feels that quashing of such proceedings on

account of compromise would bring about

peace and would secure ends of justice, it

should not hesitate to quash them. In such

cases, the prosecution becomes a lame

prosecution. Pursuing such a lame

prosecution would be waste of time and

energy. That will also unsettle the

compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.

5. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of

Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC

(Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2

SCC (L&S) 988] this Court has observed that:

(SCC p. 340, para 58)

“58. Where the High Court

quashes a criminal proceeding having

regard to the fact that the dispute

between the offender and the victim

has been settled although the offences

are not compoundable, it does so as in

its opinion, continuation of criminal

proceedings will be an exercise in

futility and justice in the case demands

that the dispute between the parties is

put to an end and peace is restored;

securing the ends of justice being the

ultimate guiding factor.”

Needless to say that the above observations

are applicable to this Court also.

6. The learned counsel for the parties

have requested this Court that the impugned

order [Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand,

Criminal MP No. 1915 of 2011, order dated 4-

7-2012 (Jhar)] be set aside as the High Court

has not noticed the correct position in law in

regard to quashing of criminal proceedings

when there is a compromise. Affidavit has

been filed in this Court by complainant Anil

Mandal, who is Respondent 2 herein. In the

affidavit he has stated that a compromise

petition has been filed in the lower court. It is

further stated that he and the appellants are

neighbours, that there is harmonious

relationship between the two sides and that

they are living peacefully. He has further

stated that he does not want to contest the

present appeal and he has no grievance

against the appellants. The learned counsel

for the parties have confirmed that the

disputes between the parties are settled; that

8

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

parties are abiding by the compromise deed

and living peacefully. They have urged that in

the circumstances pending proceedings be

quashed. The State of Jharkhand has further

filed an affidavit opposing the compromise.

The affidavit does not persuade us to reject

the prayer made by the appellant and the

second respondent for quashing of the

proceedings.”

9. The law regarding the power of the High Court in

quashing FIRs on settlement arrived at between the parties

under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is well settled by a catena

of decisions of the Supreme Court. In Gian Singh vs. State of

Punjab

2 the Supreme Court summarized the position thus:

“61. The position that emerges from the

above discussion can be summarised thus :

the power of the High Court in quashing a

criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in

exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct

and different from the power given to a

criminal court for compounding the offences

under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent

power is of wide plenitude with no statutory

limitation but it has to be exercised in accord

with the guideline engrafted in such power

viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to

prevent abuse of the process of any court. In

what cases power to quash the criminal

proceeding or complaint or FIR may be

exercised where the offender and the victim

have settled their dispute would depend on

the facts and circumstances of each case and

no category can be prescribed. However,

before exercise of such power, the High Court

must have due regard to the nature and

gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious

offences of mental depravity or offences like

murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly

quashed even though the victim or victim's

family and the offender have settled the

dispute. Such offences are not private in

nature and have a serious impact on society.

Similarly, any compromise between the victim

and the offender in relation to the offences

under special statutes like the Prevention of

2

(2012) 10 SCC 303

9

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

Corruption Act or the offences committed by

public servants while working in that

capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for

quashing criminal proceedings involving such

offences. But the criminal cases having

overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil

flavour stand on a different footing for the

purposes of quashing, particularly the

offences arising from commercial, financial,

mercantile, civil, partnership or such like

transactions or the offences arising out of

matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the

family disputes where the wrong is basically

private or personal in nature and the parties

have resolved their entire dispute. In this

category of cases, the High Court may quash

the criminal proceedings if in its view,

because of the compromise between the

offender and the victim, the possibility of

conviction is remote and bleak and

continuation of the criminal case would put

the accused to great oppression and prejudice

and extreme injustice would be caused to him

by not quashing the criminal case despite full

and complete settlement and compromise

with the victim. In other words, the High Court

must consider whether it would be unfair or

contrary to the interest of justice to continue

with the criminal proceeding or continuation of

the criminal proceeding would tantamount to

abuse of process of law despite settlement

and compromise between the victim and the

wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of

justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case

is put to an end and if the answer to the

above question(s) is in the affirmative, the

High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction

to quash the criminal proceeding.”

10. In Narendra Singh vs. State of Punjab

3

the Supreme

Court laid down the following principles by which the High

Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the

settlement between the parties and exercising its power

under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. while accepting the

settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to

3

(2014) 6 SCC 466

10

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

accept the settlement with direction to continue with the

criminal proceedings:

“29.1. Power conferred under Section

482 of the Code is to be distinguished from

the power which lies in the Court to

compound the offences under Section 320 of

the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the

Code, the High Court has inherent power to

quash the criminal proceedings even in those

cases which are not compoundable, where

the parties have settled the matter between

themselves. However, this power is to be

exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached

the settlement and on that basis petition for

quashing the criminal proceedings is filed,

the guiding factor in such cases would be to

secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of

any court.

While exercising the power the High

Court is to form an opinion on either of the

aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be

exercised in those prosecutions which involve

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.

Similarly, for the offences alleged to have

been committed under special statute like the

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.

29.4. On the other hand, those

criminal cases having overwhelmingly and

predominantly civil character, particularly

those arising out of commercial transactions

or arising out of matrimonial relationship or

family disputes should be quashed when the

parties have resolved their entire disputes

among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the

High Court is to examine as to whether the

possibility of conviction is remote and bleak

and continuation of criminal cases would put

11

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

the accused to great oppression and

prejudice and extreme injustice would be

caused to him by not quashing the criminal

cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC

would fall in the category of heinous and

serious offences and therefore are to be

generally treated as crime against the society

and not against the individual alone.

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 proving 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/delicate parts of the body, nature of

weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect

of injuries suffered by the victim can generally

be the guiding factor. On the basis of this

prima facie analysis, the High Court can

examine as to whether there is a strong

possibility of conviction or the chances of

conviction are remote and bleak. In the former

case it can refuse to accept the settlement and

quash the criminal proceedings whereas in

the latter case it would be permissible for the

High Court to accept the plea compounding

the offence based on complete settlement

between the parties. At this stage, the Court

can also be swayed by the fact that the

settlement between the parties is going to

result in harmony between them which may

improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to

exercise its power under Section 482 of the

Code or not, timings of settlement play a

crucial role. Those cases where the settlement

is arrived at immediately after the alleged

commission of offence and the matter is still

under investigation, the High Court may be

liberal in accepting the settlement to quash

the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is

because of the reason that at this stage the

investigation is still on and even the charge-

sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those

cases where the charge is framed but the

evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still

at infancy stage, the High Court can show

12

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

benevolence in exercising its powers

favourably, but after prima facie assessment

of the circumstances/material mentioned

above. On the other hand, where the

prosecution evidence is almost complete or

after the conclusion of the evidence the matter

is at the stage of argument, normally the High

Court should refrain from exercising its power

under Section 482 of the Code, as in such

cases the trial court would be in a position to

decide the case finally on merits and to come

to a conclusion as to whether the offence

under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.

Similarly, in those cases where the conviction

is already recorded by the trial court and the

matter is at the appellate stage before the

High Court, mere compromise between the

parties would not be a ground to accept the

same resulting in acquittal of the offender

who has already been convicted by the trial

court. Here charge is proved under Section

307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of

a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no

question of sparing a convict found guilty of

such a crime.”

11. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan

4 the

Supreme Court while examining all the previous relevant

judgments on the point held:

“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 a nd

predominantly the civil character, particularly

those arising out of commercial transactions

or 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;

4

(2019) 5 SCC 688

13

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be

exercised for the offences under the special

statutes like the 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;

15.4. 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 dis pute 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/delicate 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 paras

29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court

in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of

Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri)

54] should 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 impact on society, on the

ground that there is a settlement/compromise

between the victim and the offender, the High

14

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

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.”

12. In Ramgopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

5 the Supreme

Court dealt with a case in which the accused had been

convicted for various offences under section 294, 323 and

326 read with section 34 IPC. The appellant No.1 therein

was alleged to have struck the complainant with a pharsa,

which resultantly cut off the little finger of his left hand.

During the pendency of the appeal a compromise had been

entered between the parties. The Supreme Court held:

“11. True it is that offences which are

„non-compoundable‟ cannot be compounded

by a criminal court in purported exercise of its

powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such

attempt by the court would amount to

alteration, addition and modification of

Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive

domain of Legislature. There is no patent or

latent ambiguity in the language of Section

320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider

interpretation and include such offences in the

docket of „compoundable‟ offences which have

been consciously kept out as non -

compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited

jurisdiction to compound an offence within the

framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an

embargo against invoking inherent powers by

the High Court vested in it under Section 482

Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the

peculiar facts and circumstances of a case

and for justifiable reasons can press Section

482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the

process of any Court and/or to secure the

ends of justice.

5

2021 SCC OnLine SC 834

15

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

12. The High Court, therefore, having

regard to the nature of the offence and the

fact that parties have amicably settled their

dispute and th e victim has willingly

consented to the nullification of criminal

proceedings, can quash such proceedings in

exercise of its inherent powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-

compoundable. The High Court can

indubitably evaluate the consequential effects

of the offence beyond the body of an

individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic

approach, to ensure that the felony, even if

goes unpunished, does not tinker with or

paralyze the very object of the administration

of criminal justice system.

13. It appears to us that criminal

proceedings involving non-heinous offences or

where the offences are pre-dominantly of a

private nature, can be annulled irrespective of

the fact that trial has already been concluded

or appeal stands dismissed aga inst

conviction. Handing out punishment is not the

sole form of delivering justice. Societal method

of applying laws evenly is always subject to

lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that

the cases where compromise is struck post-

conviction, the High Court ought to exercise

such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view

the circumstances surrounding the incident,

the fashion in which the compromise has been

arrived at, and with due regard to the nature

and seriousness of the offence, besides the

conduct of the accused, before and after the

incidence. The touchstone for exercising the

extra-ordinary power under Section 482

Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice.

There can be no hard and fast line

constricting the power of the High Court to do

substantial justice. A restrictive construction

of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in

the given facts and circumstances of a case,

may rather lead to grave injustice. On the

other hand, in cases where heinous offences

have been proved against perpetrators, no

such benefit ought to be extended, as

cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder

Singh v. State of Punjab

3

and Laxmi

Narayan (Supra).

14. In other words, grave or serious

offences or offences which involve moral

turpitude or have a harmful effect on the

16

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

social and moral fabric of the society or

involve matters concerning public policy,

cannot be construed betwixt two individuals

or groups only, for such offences have the

potential to impact the society at large.

Effacing abominable offences through

quashing process would not only send a

wrong signal to the community but may also

accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous

habitual or professional offenders, who can

secure a „settlement‟ through duress, threats,

social boycotts, bribes or other dubious

means. It is well said that “let no guilty man

escape, if it can be avoided.”

13. During the hearing the petitioner no.2 who was

personally present stated that all differences between the

petitioner no.1 and him have been amicably resolved and

that after being treated he does not have a hearing

problem anymore.

14. In these circumstances, this court is called upon to

consider if the FIR and the criminal proceeding against the

petitioner no.1 be quashed in exercise of its power under

section 482 Cr.P.C. having regard to the fact that the

parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victims

(petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4) have no objection to it. The

offence under section 326 IPC is non-compoundable but

not a heinous offence. The records prima facie reveal that

the incident occurred when the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4,

as officers of the company engaged in the construction of

the highway, sought to remove the construction outside the

residence of the petitioner no.1’s father-in-law (with his

17

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

permission) which fell outside his private area and where

the highway was to be constructed. It transpires that the

petitioner no.1 however, got agitated by the fact that the

petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 broke and cleared the part of the

cemented construction which was constructed by his

father-in-law but under the road construction area. This

led to the petitioner no.1 allegedly attacking the petitioner

nos. 2, 3 and 4.

15. There is nothing to suggest or doubt that the

compromise entered between the petitioners is not bona

fide. Besides the offence under section 326 IPC all other

offences being compoundable have been compromis ed

between the petitioners. Having resolved their dispute and

differences compounding the other related offences and not

allowing the compromise to go through with regard to the

offence under section 326 IPC may lead to a situat ion

which may not secure the ends of justice and prevent

abuse of the process of court. Possibility of conviction in

such cases may be bleak. As stated earlier the trial is yet to

begin. The Supreme Court is clear that the High Court can

show benevolence in exercising its power favorably after

prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material even

in cases where the charge is framed but evidence is yet to

start or is still at infancy stage. As held by the Supreme

18

Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2021

Pema Chultim Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim

Court in Ramgopal (supra) criminal proceedings involving

non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre -

dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective

of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal

stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out

punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice.

Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to

lawful exceptions.

16. In view of the aforesaid, the petition under section 482

Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners is allowed. FIR No.29/2019

dated 05.11.2019 as well as the Criminal Proceeding i.e.

G.R. Case No.21 of 2020 pending in the Court of the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Yangang, Sub-Division, South

Sikkim are hereby quashed.

17. It is hoped that the petitioner no.1 who is a graduate

does not in the future take law into his own hands to

resolve disputes which can be effectively settled by

approaching the relevant authorities as well as the courts

of law.

( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )

Judge

Approved for reporting : Yes/No

Internet : Yes/No

to/