UGEN JIGMEE AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the son and the mother seeking quashing of the FIR No. 283 of 2016 and consequential Sessions Trial Case No. 23 of 2016 (State of Sikkim v. Ugen Jigmee @ Jigmee Zangmoo) pending on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, East at Gangtok.

(2.) The genesis of the trial is that the first petitioner, being the biological son of the second petitioner, was living with the second petitioner i.e. his mother, together, On 25th August, 2016, a dispute cropped up in the room of the second petitioner's mother, where she was watching TV with her sister Tashi Peggy at around 2200 hrs., when the first petitioner/ accused came to the house in a drunken condition and asked his aunt Tashi Peggy to go to Tadong, which she denied, on being late in the night. Mother of the second petitioner, being the grandmother of the first petitioner, intervened and also tried to pacify him, which agitated him and he slapped his mother, the second petitioner, and left the room for his room. Later, on 26th August, 2016 at around 0100 hrs., the first petitioner/ accused came to the room of the second petitioner's mother, where the second petitioner was relaxing and it is alleged that all of sudden, the first petitioner took out a paper cutter and attacked the second petitioner on her neck, which led to filing of the complaint, i.e. FIR, by the second petitioner at 1040 hrs, stating that the first petitioner had assaulted her and tried to cut her neck with blade. On investigation, the first petitioner was arrested and charge-sheet was filed committing the petitioner for trial under Section 307/506 of the IPC, in the Court of the Sessions Judge, East at Gangtok. It appears, during currency of the trial, the mother and the son settled the dispute amicably, which was executed in the Compromise Deed dated 21st April, 2017, whereunder, the first petitioner, being the only son undertook to live properly and not to use any force, threat, coercion or any undue influence in future. It was further promised to maintain peace and harmony in the family. In such view of the matter, the instant petition was filed for the aforestated relief.

(3.) Ms. Samita Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the accused and the complainant, i.e. the first petitioner and second petitioner, have been living together and the incident has taken place in the drunken condition. It is further submitted that the first petitioner was a drug addict and alcoholic. He was taken to the rehabilitation centre by the family members for two times between 13.11.2005 to 11.05.2006 and 18.10.2014 to 23.02.2015, which is evident from a certificate dated 02nd December, 2016, annexed to the petition. After reliabilitation, he was brought up at home. The first petitioner had again started taking drugs and alcohol. The second petitioner, mother, had already taken necessary steps by consulting "Cadabams Group" situated in Bangalore, to deal with the addiction issue and for rehabilitation, as is evident from the correspondence from the said group, annexed herewith as Annexure P-1.