Karma Bhutia and Ors. vs State of Sikkim
- Court
- High Court of Sikkim
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
SKHC01-000086-2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl. M.C. No.10 of 2026
1. Karma Bhutia,
S/o Late P.B. Bhutia,
Aged about 54 years,
R/o Thanka Martam, Gangtok, District
P.O. Nazitam-737134,
P.S. Singtam.
2. Leela Bhujel @ Neelu Bhutia,
W/o Karma Bhutia,
Aged about 37 years,
R/o Thanka Martam, Gangtok District
P.O. Nazitam-737134
P.S. Singtam.
3. Sonam Wangdi Bhutia,
Son of Late Papypay Bhutia,
Aged: 45 years,
R/o Thanka Martam, Gangtok District
P.O. Nazitam-737134
P.S. Singtam.
4. Phigu Bhutia,
W/o Late Pepay Bhutia,
Aged about 81 years,
R/o Thanka Martam, Gangtok District
P.O. Nazitam-737134
P.S. Singtam.
….. Petitioners
Versus
State of Sikkim
..…. Respondent
Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. Deven Sharma Luitel, Advocate for the Petitioners.
2
Crl. M.C. No. 10 of 2026
Karma Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim
Mr. S.K. Chettri , Additional Public Prosecutor f or the
Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 31.07.2026
Date of Judgment : 31.07.2026
Date on which uploaded : 01.08.2026
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
1. The present petition under section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS) has been filed
before this Court on behalf of four petitioners namely, Karma
Bhutia; Leela Bhujel @ Neelu Bhutia; Sonam Wangdi Bhutia
and Smt Phigu Bhutia-victim since deceased. Karma Bhutia son
of the victim and Neelu Bhutia his wife are the accused persons
in the present case. Sonam Wangdi Bhutia the other son was
the complainant whose complaint led to the registration of the
First Information Report (FIR) on 12.09.2024 after the incident.
The above persons are arrayed as petitioner nos. 1 to 4 in the
present petition respectively.
2. It may be important to state the relevant facts for disposal
of the present petition. The incident occurred on 11.09.2024. It
was alleged in the FIR dated 12.09.2024 lodged by petitioner
no.4 that at around 07:00 p.m. on 11.09.2024 Karma Bhutia
and his wife-Neelu Bhutia came to the victim’s house and
assaulted the 80 years old victim with a sharp weapon causing
3
Crl. M.C. No. 10 of 2026
Karma Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim
injuries to her head and leg. She was thereafter, taken to STNM
Hospital for treatment where she was in serious condition.
3. Accordingly, FIR no. Singtam 137/2024 dated 12.09.2024
was registered under section 118(2) and section 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the BNS) against the accused
persons.
4 . On 27.02.2025 the police filed a charge-sheet alleging
prima facie case under section 118(2) of the BNS relates to
voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of any instrument
for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used
as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. The punishment
prescribed is punishment with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine. Section 3(5) of the BNS relates to criminal
acts done by several persons in furtherance of the common
intention of all is also pressed. The provision makes each of
such persons liable for that act in the same manner as if it were
done by him alone.
5. On 13.01.2026 a purported compromise deed was entered
into between the accused persons, the victim and the
complainant. The said compromise deed bears the purported
thumb impression of the victim. Although the purported
compromise deed is said to have been entered on 13.01.2026
itself, the present petition was filed before this Court only on
4
Crl. M.C. No. 10 of 2026
Karma Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim
08.06.2026 almost after five months. Two days thereafter, the
victim expired. These facts are certain.
6. The compromise deed does not indicate that there was any
independent assessment of the mental state or capacity of the
victim at the time when the purported compromise deed was
purportedly executed. The victim was not only aged but had
also suffered serious injuries on her head.
7. On the above given facts it would be difficult for this Court
to ascertain the mental state of the victim when she is said to
have put her thumb impression on the purported compromise
deed. The fact that the victim’s thumb impression has been
obtained in the compromise deed reflect that she was either
illiterate or unable to affix her signature thereon. As there is no
independent evidence to gauge her mental state and her
capacity to comprehend what she was signing on the said date,
I do not think it would be a fit case where I should exercise the
inherent powers of the High Court to quash the FIR and the
accompanying charge-sheet. Such powers can be exercised to
do complete justice. The better course of action for the accused
persons would be to face trial before the competent court and
absolve themselves, if they have a case, if so advised.
8. The petition is therefore, rejected.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )
Judge
Yes
Approved for reporting :
to/