Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2717 Gua

                                                         Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010198442019




                             THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)


         Crl.Pet./523/2019

         MISS INDRA MOHINI PATAR AND ANR.
         D/O MR. HARESHWAR PATAR
         PRESENT ADD-HOUSE NO. 18(A)
         S.K. GIRLS HOSTEL
         CHENIKUTHI
         P.O.-SILPUKHURI
         P.S.-LATASIL
         GUWAHATI-781003
         DIST-KAMRUP (M)
         PERMANENT ADD-HOUSE NO 9
         TULSI COTTAGE
         VILL-BHALUKAGIRIR
         DIST-MORIGAON
         ASSAM

         2: MISS SWARNA BURAGOHAIN
         D/O BUDHIN BURAGOHAIN
          PRESENT ADD- AE 206
          3RD FLOOR
          RABINDRAPALLY KESTOPUR
          KOLKATA-700102
         WEST BENGAL
          PERMANENT ADD- 15 KM
          UMRANGSO
          DIST-DIMA HASAO
         ASSAM
          PIN-788931
         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
         REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
         ASSAM
                                                                        Page No.# 2/4

          2:SMT. MINATI HAZARIKA
          W/O SRI SWAPNANIL HAZARIKA
           R/O SURYA ANAND APARTMENT
           MILANPUR
           P.S.-CHANDMARI
           DIST-KAMRUP(M)
          ASSAM
           ------------
          Advocate for : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV.
          Advocate for : PP
          ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.



                                BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

                                     ORDER

08-11-2021

Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel, represents the petitioners. Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor represents the State respondent No. 1.

Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel represents the respondent No. 2.

The fact of the case, as appears from the materials placed before this Court, is that the respondent No. 1 and another lady, namely, Ms. Swarna Buragohain were residing together in a rented house in a building occupied by the petitioners at Milanpur Club Tiniali under Chandmari Police Station, Guwahati. On 18-01-2017, the respondent No. 1 and aforesaid Ms. Swarna Buragohain returned together to the rented house at about 10.30 p.m. after shopping and found that the gate was closed. The petitioner had opened the gate. On entering, the respondent No. 1 enquired from the son of the petitioner No. 2 as to what for the gate was not opened, to which he replied that he was not the petitioners' Chowkidar. Thereafter, there had taken place heated exchanges of Page No.# 3/4

words and blows between the parties resulting, ultimately, in sustaining simple injuries by both the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matters have been settled amicably between the parties and petitioners do not want to pursue the case anymore.

The learned counsel for the private respondent has subscribed to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein in paragraph-61, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that- "the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.". Taking into account the ratio in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, this Court is of the view that continuance of the proceedings Page No.# 4/4

in the aforesaid GR Case No. 693 of 2017, arising out of Chandmari Police Station Case No. 37 of 2017, under Sections 341/294/325/500/506/34 of the IPC will be

an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, is quashed. Accordingly this petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant