LAWS(GAU)-2023-11-53

TESHI PETER Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Decided On November 30, 2023
Teshi Peter Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Rama, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) The petitioners, praying for quashing of the FIR, dtd. 29/7/2021 lodged by the petitioner no. 2 against the petitioner no. 1, leading to registration of Women Police Station, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 102/2021, under Sec. 498(A) of the IPC along with the Charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 41/2023, dtd. 20/5/2023 submitted by the Police in G. R. Case No. 697/2021.

(3.) The admitted facts as revealed from the materials available on record is that the petitioner no. 2 (wife) lodged an FIR on 29/7/2021 against the petitioner no. 1 (husband) alleging therein of she being subjected to torture and other mental harassment. On receipt of the said FIR, the Police registered the case being Women Police Station, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 102/2021, under Sec. 498 (A) of the IPC and investigated into the same. On conclusion of the investigation a Charge-sheet being No. 41/2023, dtd. 20/5/2023 came to be filed against the petitioner no. 1. On 27/9/2023, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex at Yupia, framed charge under Sec. 498(A) IPC against the petitioner no. 1 and the said proceeding is currently pending disposal. During the pendency of the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 1 held discussions and on resolving their disputes, executed a Settlement Deed on 7/8/2021 and further resolving to continue to co-habit as husband and wife in a peaceful manner. In terms of the said settlement deed, the petitioner no. 1 approached the learned Trial Court praying for his discharge from the criminal proceedings in view of the settlement arrived at between him and the petitioner no. 2, however, the Sec. involved not being a compoundable one, under Sec. 320 of the Cr.P.C., the Trial Court expressed its inability to accept the prayer of the petitioner no. 1 and accordingly, the present proceedings have been jointly instituted by the petitioner no. 1 and 2 praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner no. 1.