If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and do not build any case against the accused and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a single bench HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE. In the matter – Mr Rinchen Tamang And Another V/s State of Sikkim. [Crl. M.C. No. 07 of 2021]
This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed by 12 petitioners seeking the annulment of First Information Report (FIR) No. 237/2018 dated 09.12.2018 registered under section 341, 147, 149, 324, 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the petitioner nos. 2, 4, 5 and other unknown accused persons on a complaint by petitioner nos. 8 to 12 (jointly referred to for convenience as the complainants).
Ms Rachhitta Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh vs. the State of Punjab1; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan2 and Satish Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3 and submitted that in view of the compromise entered between the complainants and the accused persons the FIR and the pending criminal proceedings may be quashed in exercise of this court’s inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the accused persons are young people who have just started out with their lives. They are either employed in the Government, private enterprise or are doing their own business to make a living. None of them is habitual offenders and this is the first incident in which they have been alleged to have committed any offence. The accused person deeply regret the incident and if this court would allow the bona fide compromise to bury their differences with the complainants they would never involve themselves in any activity which would bring disrepute.
The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case the quashing of the criminal proceedings may advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst them. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind that handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice and societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions, this court is of the considered view that discretion would be a better exercise in allowing the compromise to bury the difference between them.
Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra