Page No.# 1/12 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 9679 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/12 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 18 December, 2025

                                                                       Page No.# 1/12

GAHC010064992024




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:17599

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

                               Case No. : Crl.Pet./966/2024

            SURAJIT KUMAR BHAGOWATI
            S/O LATE PURNA CHANDRA BHAGAWATI
            R/O VILL- BHERBHERI
            P.O. HALOWAGAON, P.S. SAMAGURI
            DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM
            PIN-782141



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:DR. MOUSUMI SAIKIA
            W/O RISHIKESH DOWARA
            R/O ARB ROAD

            SOUTH HAIBORGAON
            P.S. SADAR
            DIST. NAGAON
            ASSAM
            PIN-782002

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K
DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, A W AMAN (R-2),SAMIM RAHMAN(R-2),MR.
SURAJIT DAS(R-2),MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ
                                                      Page No.# 2/12

Linked Case : Crl.Pet./360/2025

DR MOUSMI SAIKIA @ DR MOUSUMI SAIKIA
W/O HRISHIKESH DOWARAH
R/O BHUYAN PATTY

SONALI PATH
A.R. B. ROAD
NAGAON
P.S. NAGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM


VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY THE LEARNED PP
ASSAM

2:DR. SURAJIT KR. BHAGAWATI
S/O PURNA CHANDRA BHAGAWATI

R/O VILL-BHERBHERI GAON

P.S. SAMAGURI

DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
------------

Advocate for : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

Date of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date of Judgment : 18.12.2025

Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the Judgment? : NA

Whether the full Judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Page No.# 3/12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent as well as Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 in Crl. Pet. No. 966/2024.

2. Criminal Petition No. 966/2024 (Surajit Kumar Bhagowati Vs. The State of Assam & Anr.), was filed by the petitioner, under Section 482/397/401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing of the entire proceedings arising out of PRC No. 93/2023, under Section 354(A) of the IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon in connection with Nagaon P.S. Case No. 430/2022.

3. Criminal Petition No. 360/2025 (Dr. Mousmi Saikia Vs. The State of Assam & Anr.) is also taken with the instant case together for disposal by a common order, as, during the pendency of both the criminal petitions, the concerned parties have filed a Memorandum of Understanding, notarized on 16.07.2025, to the effect that both the parties have come to a mutual settlement for not pursuing their cases pending before the learned CJM, Nagaon.

4. In Crl.Pet. No. 966/2025, it is the case of the petitioner that the complainant i.e., the respondent no. 2, Dr. Mousmi Saikia had lodged an FIR before the Nagaon Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that since joining in Anandaram Dhekial Phookan College, Nagaon, the petitioner, as Principal of the said College, started constantly harassing the respondent no. 2 and tried to molest her on many occasions. It was also alleged in the FIR that one day, the petitioner took her in his vehicle to one herbal garden and in the absence of the caretaker of the herbal garden, took her to the caretaker's room and tried to have forceful physical relationship with her but she somehow saved herself from his clutches. It was further alleged that afterwards also, the petitioner repeatedly pressurized Page No.# 4/12

her to go with him for such activities and allegedly told her that if, she surrender herself to his advances, he could initiate the interview and help her in getting appointed as Lecturer of Botany Department in his college. In view of the aforesaid advances and unwarranted actions of the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 had filed the aforesaid FIR.

5. Upon receipt of the FIR, the Nagaon Police registered the Nagaon Police Station Case No. 430/2022, under Sections 354(A)/376/511 of the IPC. It is stated that after the completion of the investigation, on 20.01.2023, the investigating authority had submitted the Charge-sheet against the present petitioner, under Section 354(A) of the IPC. Subsequently, on 11.01.2024, the learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 354(A) of the IPC against the petitioner.

6. The petitioner being highly aggrieved by the filing of the Charge-sheet and the order dated 11.01.2024, whereby, a charge was framed under Section 354(A) of the IPC against the petitioner, has preferred the criminal petition for setting aside and quashing of the entire proceedings arising out of PRC No. 93/2023, under Section 354(A) of the IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon.

7. Wheareas, in Criminal Petition No. 360/2025, which was filed by the petitioner therein, i.e. the Dr. Mousmi Saikia, arraying Dr. Surajit Kumar Bhagowati (the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 966/2024) as respondent no. 2, contended that she is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Herbal Science & Technology, Anandaram Dhekial Phookan College, Nagaon, wherein, the respondent no. 2 is the Principal of the said College.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 08.04.2022, the petitioner had lodged an FIR before the Nagaon Police Station, alleging that the respondent no. 2 had sexually harassed her. It was alleged that though the respondent no. 2 tried to established forceful physical relationship with her, she somehow resisted him. Subsequently, when a post in Botany Department opened up and the petitioner applied for the same, the respondent no. 2 stalled the interview process and kept asking the petitioner to accompany him to Page No.# 5/12

accept his sexual advances in lieu of selecting her for the post. It was stated that the petitioner filed an FIR, which was registered as Nagaon P.S. Case No. 430/2022, under Section 354(A)/376/511 of the IPC. It is contended by her that on the day she filed the FIR against the respondent no. 2 i.e., on 08.04.2022, after coming to know about the filing of the FIR, the respondent no. 2 had also filed an FIR, vindictively against her. It is contended that the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2, he alleged that Anandaram Dhekial Phookan College, Nagaon, had arranged an interview for appointment for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Botany, which was scheduled on 09.04.2022. However, on 06.04.2022, at around 12:15 PM, the petitioner went to his chamber and threatened him over the matter of appointment. It was further alleged that the petitioner threatened the respondent no. 2 that if she was not selected for the post, she would file false complaint against him and thereby, ruining his image by making media publications about his character. The respondent no. 2 had additionally alleged that since the petitioner had been served with a letter disqualifying her from the interview process, the petitioner had published a letter accusing him of sexual harassment intending to malign his image.

9. The FIR was lodged before the Haibargaon Town Out-Post, which was later on registered as Nagaon P.S. Case No. 436/2022, under Sections 447/506 of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the Charge-sheet and vide order dated 28.07.2022, PRC No. 2320/2022 was registered. Vide the order dated 30.07.2022, the learned CJM, Nagaon, took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the petitioner. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court.

10. Being aggrieved by such cognizance taken by the learned CJM, Nagaon, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal petition for setting aside and quashing of the whole proceedings, pending before the aforesaid Trial Court.

11. Both the aforesaid petitions were listed together as the parties being the same and during the hearing of the cases, the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, Page No.# 6/12

intimated this Court by submitting the above mentioned Memorandum of Understanding stating that all their differences have been settled and since the matters relate to their personal affairs though the Sections involved are non-compoundable, both the proceedings pending before the Trial Court should be quashed.

12. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court has taken up both the matters analogously to dispose of by a common order.

13. Both the counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that the parties, during the course of the trial and with passage of time, have amicably resolved all the disputes and misunderstandings and the parties had confirmed and declared that they have amicably resolved the disputes. They submitted that they wish to bring the proceedings in the spirit of peace to a closure. They further submitted that no good purpose would be served in taking the proceeding pending before the Trial Court in PRC No. 93/2023 as well as PRC No. 2320/2022, pending before the learned CJM, Nagaon, ahead.

14. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, they submitted that both the criminal petitions should be allowed by quashing the aforesaid proceedings pending in the aforementioned cases i.e., the PRC No. 93/2023 as well as PRC No. 2320/2022, pending before the learned CJM, Nagaon.

15. The original copy of the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the parties and submitted before the Court, is kept on record and marked as 'X' for identification.

16. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have referred to the following cases in support of their submissions that in cases involving non-compoundable offences also, the High Court has power to quash the criminal proceeding pending before the Trial Court.

(i) Shiji alias Pappu and Ors., Vs. Radhika and Another, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705.

Page No.# 7/12

(ii) Jagdish Chanana and Ors., Vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 704.

(iii) Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors., Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641.

17. Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P. submits that in view of the MoU arrived at by the parties, he does not have any objection if the prayer made by the parties are allowed.

18. In the case of Shiji alias Pappu (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph-17 has held as under: -

"17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C."

19. While in the case of Jagdish Chanana (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 2 & 3 has held as under: -

"2. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court Crl. Misc. Petition No. 42 of 2008 has been filed putting on record a compromise deed dated 30-4-2007. The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of Page No.# 8/12

commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in Court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be.

3. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No. 83 dated 12-3-2005, PS City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings."

20. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, after discussing several judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, including the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 in similar circumstances, has laid down the following principles which are quoted herein below: -

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject. may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be Page No.# 9/12

quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim has settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction his remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9.

above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State Page No.# 10/12

have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

21. In this connection, it may be relevant to refer to the propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra). The relevant portion of paragraph-61 of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is reproduced herein below: -

"61. ......But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavor stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash 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 criminal case would put 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...."

22. In the instant cases also, it is seen that the dispute between the parties is primarily of personal and private nature, not involving any other person or society at large and as stated above, the parties have already come to a mutual agreement by settling all their disputes and differences by executing the MoU.

23. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after taking into account the fact that the dispute between the parties arose from their marital relationship and that they had already resolved their entire disputes among themselves, even if, the proceedings are Page No.# 11/12

allowed to be continued, the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak, for ends of justice, allowed the petition for quashing. It may be relevant herein, to reproduce paragraph-15.5 of the aforesaid case.

"15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused, the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

24. In the instant cases in hand, it is seen that the allegations against each other is personal in nature without having any possible influence on the society at large. It is also apparent that no heinous or serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape, dacoity or any such nature is involved in the allegations made against each other by the parties in the instant cases. It is also seen from the facts and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the possibility of conviction of any of the parties is remote and therefore, the continuation of such criminal proceeding would be a futile exercise and wastage of time.

25. In view of the aforesaid discussions and after consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties as well as the materials available on record and taking into account the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served if both the criminal petitions are allowed by quashing and setting aside of the proceedings i.e., the PRC No. 93/2023 as well as PRC No. 2320/2022, pending before the learned CJM, Nagaon.

26. In view of the aforesaid findings, both the criminal petitions are allowed by quashing the respective proceedings i.e., the PRC No. 93/2023 as well as PRC No. Page No.# 12/12

2320/2022, pending before the learned CJM, Nagaon.

27. Accordingly, vide this common order, both the criminal petitions i.e., Crl.Pet. No. 966/2024 and Crl.Pet. No. 360/2025 are disposed of in terms of the directions given above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant