Justice Prevails Over Technicality | Sikkim High Court Quashes FIR In Land Feud Settled Amicably Between Neighbours
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Sikkim Single Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai held that continuation of criminal proceedings arising from a civil land dispute would serve no judicial purpose given the amicable resolution between the parties. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Court quashed the FIR dated 16-08-2022 and corresponding proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakyong.
The petition, filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, sought the quashing of Pakyong Police Station FIR No.31 of 2022 dated 16-08-2022 and General Register Case No.208 of 2024 titled "State of Sikkim vs. Deepam Pradhan and Others" pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakyong. The FIR originated from a land dispute between the petitioners and private respondents, involving adjacent landholdings.
According to the complaint filed by the private respondents on 16-08-2022, it was alleged that the petitioners, including their domestic help, trespassed into the respondents' property on 13-08-2022, dismantled a brick wall, and physically assaulted them. Based on the allegations, FIR No.31 of 2022 was registered under Sections 447, 323, 354, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Following completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakyong, implicating Petitioner No.1 under Sections 442, 448, 452, 351, 354, 120B, and 34 IPC. Petitioners No.2 to 7 were charged under the same sections, excluding Section 354 IPC, and including Sections 323 and 426 IPC. Subsequently, charges were framed accordingly in General Register Case No.208 of 2024.
The petitioners submitted that all civil disputes had been amicably settled. A Compromise Deed dated 21-12-2024 was executed between the disputing parties in Title Suit No.01 of 2022. A second Compromise Deed of the same date was executed in Title Suit No.38 of 2022. Both suits were concluded by decrees dated 01-02-2025.
Following the civil settlement, the petitioners and respondents also resolved the connected criminal matter through a Settlement Deed dated 04-02-2025. The parties jointly agreed to withdraw the criminal proceedings to preserve societal harmony. The petitioners sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings on grounds that some offences were non-compoundable under IPC, necessitating judicial intervention.
The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the FIR dated 16-08-2022 predates the enforcement of BNSS on 01-07-2024, and therefore the petition should have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
"The BNSS came into force with effect from 01-07-2024... Consequently, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, stood repealed immediately."
The Court noted the objection regarding the applicability of Section 528 BNSS over Section 482 Cr.P.C. and addressed it by examining Section 531 of the BNSS.
"If any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation is pending when the BNSS comes into force, then such matters shall be disposed of, continued, held or made as per the provisions of the Cr.P.C." However, "any appeal/application/trial/inquiry/investigation, instituted on or after 01-07-2024, has to be considered in terms of the provisions of the BNSS."
The Court cited Section 4(2) of the BNSS, which directs that all offences under any law shall be investigated and tried as per the BNSS. Therefore, "there is no error in the Petition having been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS in light of the provisions of Section 4(2) and Section 531 of the BNSS."
In support of this position, the Court cited decisions from the Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court, which held that proceedings initiated after 01-07-2024 must be brought under BNSS provisions.
Quoting from Prince vs. State of NCT of Delhi: "Any appeal/application/revision/petition filed on or after 01.07.2024, is required to be filed/instituted under the provisions of BNSS, 2023."
On the merits of the case, the Court considered the Supreme Court’s precedent in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, which held: "Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility..."
Citing this, the Court observed: “The instant Petition would be one under Section 528 of the BNSS and not under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C... The FIR and the General Register Case were the outcome of the civil dispute between the parties."
The Court held that: "Certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour... where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably... the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding..."
The Court directed that: "Pakyong PS Case FIR No.31 of 2022, dated 16-08-2022, and all proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakyong District, in General Register Case No.208 of 2024 stand quashed."
It further noted:"The Crl.M.C. stands disposed of accordingly."
Additionally, the Court disposed of all pending applications linked to the matter:
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Rathi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M. N. Dhungel, Advocate; Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Deepam Pradhan and Others vs. Krishna Kumari Bhandari and Others
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No.01 of 2025
Bench: Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai
[Read/Download order]
