Gauhati High Court
Crl.Pet./45/2021 on 21 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010010632021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
Criminal Petition No. 45 of 2021
Sri Mahitosh Sinha,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Lal Mohan Sinha,
Permanent resident of House No. 33,
Bishnu Nagar, Santiram KRO Path,
Patharquarry, P.O.- Udayan Vihar, in the
District - Kamrup (Metro), Assam,
Pin -781171.
Temporary resident of H/No. 187, Patherquarry,
VIP Road, Near Uday Apartment, Guwahati,
P.O.- Udayan Vihar in the District:- Kamrup (M),
Assam, Pin-781171.
..................Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam,
Gauhati High Court, Guwahati - 1.
Page No.# 2/5
2. Mrs. Bineeta Sinha,
Aged about 30 years,
Wife of Mahitosh Sinha,
Daughter of Birendra Kumar Sinha,
Resident of H/No. 187, Patherquarry,
VIP Road, Near Uday Apartment, Guwahati,
P.O.- Udayan Vihar, in the District:- Kamrup (M),
Assam, Pin-781171
...............Respondents
Advocates for the appellant : Mr B Sinha
Advocate for the respondent : Mr D Das, Addl. PP,
: Mr H Z Singha.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
Date of Order : 21.11.2022.
ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr B Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr D Das, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Also heard Mr H Z Singha, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for
quashing of FIR, being Noonmati PS Case No. 213/2020, under Sections 325/34 IPC,
registered on the basis of an FIR dated 05.05.2020, lodged by the respondent No. 2 before
the OC, Noonmati Police Station.
Page No.# 3/5
3. Here, in this case, both the parties are husband and wife. The wife had lodged the
impugned FIR, stating inter alia that her husband, i.e, the petitioner used to assault her
causing severe injuries on her person. It is also stated in the FIR that the parents of her
husband were also involved in instigating him. On the basis of the said ejahar, a case was
registered vide Noonmati PS Case No. 213/2020, under Sections 325/34 IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present case primarily arises out
of the matrimonial dispute, in which the wife of the petitioner lodged the FIR, alleging that
the accused petitioner used to torture her physically, as a result of which she sustained
injuries on her person. It is also submitted that the wife lodged the FIR out of fits of anger
and thereafter, they have settled the matter in dispute and now they are living peacefully.
5. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband, i.e., the
present petitioner also filed a case before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (M), at
Guwahati, being FC (Civil) No. 533/2020, for restitution of conjugal rights. As the matter has
been resolved between the parties, the present petitioner filed a petition before the Family
Court to withdraw the said suit and accordingly, the said civil case was disposed of on
withdrawal. It is also argued that further proceeding of the present case would hamper the
relationship between husband and wife and as such, prays to quash the proceeding.
6. On the other hand, Mr D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has
fairly conceded that the alleged offence under Section 325 IPC is compoundable in nature
and the parties are husband and wife and he has no objection, in case, the FIR is quashed on
the basis of compromise.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has again reiterated that the matter has been
Page No.# 4/5
settled and the said compromise is in the interest of both the parties and would help in
bringing out peace and amity between the parties. He prayed that the FIR may be quashed.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also
gone through the petition as well as the order of the Family court available in the record.
9. The respondent No.2/wife had sworn an affidavit on 05.12.2020, stating that she is the
legally married wife of the present petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on
08.12.2016, as per Hindu rites and rituals. After her marriage with the petitioner, her married
life was peaceful. But after three years of their marriage, some misunderstanding arose
between them, as a result of which, she lodged the FIR on 05.05.2020, before the OC,
Noonmati PS, which was registered as Noonmati PS Case No. 213/2020, under Sections
325/34 IPC.
10. It is also stated in the affidavit that after lodging of the FIR, she was living separately
from her husband at her parental home. During this period, she could realize the
misunderstanding with her husband. Subsequently, the matter has been resolved and now
she is living with her husband and she is not interested to further proceed with the case.
11. It appears that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are husband and wife. Since
the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful
purpose will be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
12. In the case of "Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab ", 2007 0 AIR
(SC) 2868, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the
compounding of compoundable and non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution,
where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the
Page No.# 5/5
process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, had also observed that in order to secure the
ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by
this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The
relevant portion of judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised
thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the
power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section
320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation
but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power
viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court...."
14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The FIR dated 05.05.2020, i.e.,
Noonmati PS Case No. 213/2020, registered under Sections 325/34 IPC is quashed. Criminal
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
