PEM LHAMU LEPCHA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner no.1 who is the complainant and the petitioner no.2 who is the accused person facing trial in G.R. Case No.91 of 2021 has approached this court after entering into a compromise agreement dtd. 26/4/2022 to quash the proceedings pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim at Gangtok. Evidently, the petitioner no.2 is charged with the offences of having committed theft in a dwelling house under Sec. 380 IPC and for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence with imprisonment under Sec. 457 IPC. It is alleged that he had committed theft of a bag which contained, inter alia, an amount of Rs.50,000.00 from the petitioner no.1 's house at Government quarter, forest colony, Gangtok. Admittedly, out of 6 prosecution witnesses four have been examined.

(2.) Heard Mr. Sajal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners who sought to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303; Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Ramgopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) SCC OnLine SC 834 It is argued that since there is a compromise between the petitioners and the petitioner complainant has willingly desired to forgive the accused-petitioner, it should be accepted and they be allowed to bury their differences.

(3.) In Gian Singh (supra) the Supreme Court held :