Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 27 July, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010103062022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./484/2022
SUBHIT SAIKIA AND 2 ORS
S/O LATE KHIRUD SAIKIA
R/O PANITOLA
P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM
2: SIKHA SENAPATI
W/O LATE KHIRUD SAIKIA
R/O PANITOLA
P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
3: SUBHAN SAIKIA
S/O LATE KHIRUD SAIKIA
R/O PANITOLA
P.S. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:KAKOLI TALUKDAR
W/O SUBHIT SAIKIA
R/O PANITOLA
P.O. PANITOLA
P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
PIN-78618
Advocates for the petitioners: Mr. S. Islam,
Mr. A. Hawari and
Mr. S. Gogoi.
Advocate for the respondents: Mr. P. Borthakur, Addl. P.P., Assam.
Mr. M. Mondal, ld. Counsel for R.2.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Date of hearing & judgment : 27.07.2022.
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard
Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State. And also
heard Mr. M. Mondal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. This application under Section 482 of the CrPC, is preferred by applicants,
namely, Subhit Saikia, Sikha Senapati and Subhan Saikia for quashing of the
entire proceeding in PRC Case No.492/2021, under Sections 498(A)/323/506 of
the IPC, corresponding to Tinsukia P.S. Case No.829/2021, registered under
Section 498(A)/325/326/ 506 of the IPC, pending in the Court of learned SDJM
(S), Tinsukia.
3. The factual background leading to filing the present petition is briefly
Page No.# 3/5
stated as under:
4. On 10.05.2021, Smti Kakoli Talukdar, wife of Sri Subhit Saikia lodged one
FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Biswanath Chariali P.S., alleging inter alia,
amongst others that she got married with Subhit Saikia on 19.11.2018, and
thereafter, lived together with him as husband and wife and after the marriage,
her husband and his family members subjected her to both mental and physical
cruelty.
4. As the place of occurrence falls under the jurisdiction of Tinsukia Police
Station, the FIR was transferred to the Tinsukia Police Station and upon the
same, the Officer-in-Charge, Tinsukia P.S., registered Tinsukia P.S. Case
No.829/2021, under Sections 498(A)/325/326/506 of the IPC and investigated
the same and on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid the charge sheet
against the present petitioners to stand the trial in the Court, under Sections
498(A)/323/506 of the IPC.
5. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court for
quashing the FIR and the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of
learned SDJM (S), Tinsukia, on the ground that they have settled the matter
amicably among themselves and the respondent No. 2- Smti Kakoli Talukdar is
living with the peitioner No.1- Shri Subhit Saikia as husband and wife and they
are not wiling to pursue the matter and to that effect, the respondent No.2 Smti
Kakoli Talukdar had filed one affidavit on 19.05.2022, to the effect that out of
misunderstanding, she lodged the FIR and she is not wiling to proceed with the
case further and she has been leading a happy conjugal life along with her
husband and minor son, at Namsai in Arunachal Pradesh.
6. It is to be noted here that in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Page No.# 4/5
Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held: "that the power conferred under Section 482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences
under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and
predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and
when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves".
7. In the case in hand, the complainant and the petitioner No.1 are husband
and wife and the other two accused persons are family members of her
husband. From the affidavit which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-4, it
appears that the complainant has categorically stated that out of
misunderstanding she lodged the case and now she has been leading a happy
married life along with her husband and minor son at Namsai in Arunachal
Pradesh. The dispute in this case is arising out of matrimonial dispute or family
dispute. Besides, the parties have resolved the entire disputes amongst
themselves.
8. It is also to be noted here that in a non-compoundable offence, when the
parties have approached the Court for quashing the proceeding, on the basis of
settlement, the guiding factor for the Court would be: (i) to secure the ends of
justice or (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court. Here in this
case, since the matter is between the husband and the wife and since they have
resolved the entire disputes between themselves and living together as husband
and wife, to the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice will be meted
out, if the petition is allowed. Moreover, if the case is allowed to continue in the
Court of learned Court below, then also the respondent No. 2 is unlikely to
depose against the petitioners and in such event, allowing the case to continue
Page No.# 5/5
will be an abuse of the process of the Court.
9. In view of above, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and
accordingly the same stands allowed. The proceeding in the PRC Case
No.492/2021, under Sections 498(A)/323/506 of the IPC, pending in the Court
of learned SDJM (S), Tinsukia, is quashed and set aside.
10. In terms of the above, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of. The
parties have to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
