Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. allowed the compromise to bury the difference between parties and gives them their lives as good citizens.

The petition had been filed by twelve petitioners seeking the annulment of FIR No. 237/2018 dated 09-12-2018 registered under Sections 341, 147, 149, 324, 326 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)  under Section 482 of CrPC. It was alleged that while returning home from “After Dark” located at hospital dara Gangtok they were brutally attacked by more than 10 people with stones and bottles at zero point Gangtok due to which they suffered bruises all over the face and body and stitches in the head. The FIR led to filing of charge sheet against the petitioners, Pravesh Lamichaney and Sanjay Biswakarma. CJM framed charges under Sections 142, 143, 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC. It was transpired that the petitioners entered upon a deed of compromise dated 23-03-2021. Due to the intervention of family, friends and relatives they have settled their disputes amicably and the complainants did not desire to pursue the matter further against the accused persons.

The law regarding the power of the High Court in quashing FIRs on settlement arrived at between the parties under section 482 of the CrPC. The alleged offences were committed by the accused persons are all non-compoundable but none a heinous offence. The evidences indicated that the injuries caused on the complainants were simple injuries except in the case of one whose little finger was fractured due to the alleged assault. There was nothing to indicate that the compromise deed entered between the complainant and the accused persons was compromised.

The State-respondent did not bring any record to indicate otherwise. The initial verbal spat was between one of the complainants and one of the accused persons who were known to each other from before. What transpired thereafter seems to be the fall out of the unresolved differences between the two of them which ultimately dragged other friends now grouped together and taking sides. The manner in which the accused persons sought to resolve their dispute with the complainants was wanting and unbecoming of good citizens.

The nature of injury sustained does not exhibit mental depravity. The quashing would override public interest.

The complainants as well as the accused persons on their own volition have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their disputes. Court opined that the quashing of the criminal proceedings may advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst them.

Discretion would be better exercise in allowing the compromise to bury the difference between them. This would allow the accused persons and the complainants to get on with their lives as good citizens. Court hereby quashed the FIR as well as G.R. Case No. 174 of 2019.[Rinchen Tamang v. State of Sikkim, 2022 SCC OnLine Sikk 7, decided on 23-02-2022]

Ms Rachhitta Rai, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr Sujan Sunwar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-Respondent.

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.