Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 6864 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 1 September, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010194662025




                                                                    2025:GAU-AS:11727

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

                                Case No. : Crl.Pet./1068/2025

            SAGAR SHARMA AND 2 ORS.
            S/O SRI RAJKUMAR SHARMA
            R/O HOUSEN O. 14, MULAGABURUPATH, NEAR RAJDHANI MASZID, P.S.
            DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM

            2: JANVI SHARMA
             D/O SRI RAJKUMAR SHARMA
            R/O HOUSE NO. 14
             MULAGABURUPATH
             NEAR RAJDHANI MASZID
            P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M)
             GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM

            3: ABDUR RAHIM
             SON OF TAFAZZUL HUSSAIN
            PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAJDHANI MASJID PATH
            C/O KHALIDA BEGUM
             H/NO. 02
             P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M)
            AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- MANERA
             P.O. LAXMINAGAR
             P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A M S MAZUMDER, A W BARBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

                                      BEFORE
                       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
                                                                          Page No.# 2/5


                                      ORDER

Date : 01.09.2025.

Heard Mr. A.M.S. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

This is an application under Section 528 read with Sections 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing of the Sessions Case No.39/2025 (PRC Case No.1715/2024), arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No.2213/2022, registered under Section 354A/376/511/506 of the Indian Penal Code, which is accordingly charge sheeted vide Charge-Sheet No. 228/2023, dated 26.06.2023, under Section 354A/376/511/506 of the Indian Penal Code and pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

It is submitted by Mr. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 is the informant, the petitioner No.2 is the victim and the petitioner No.3 is the accused who jointly filed the present petition for quashing the entire proceeding. Mr. Mazumder further submitted that the FIR was lodged only due to misunderstanding of the fact as well as for due to some misguidance though no such incident had happened on the day of occurrence. Matter has already been compromised between the parties and hence, the present petition has jointly been filed by all the petitioners. Mr. Mazumder further submitted that the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2, the informant and the victim respectively have also sworn an affidavit after coming to know about the fact of filling of the charge sheet, wherein it is specifically stated that Page No.# 3/5

the FIR was lodged by the petitioner No.1 due to some misguidance and misunderstanding and the same is also narrated by the petitioner No.2 in her affidavit.

Mr. Mazumder further submitted that the case has already been charge sheeted and the case is at the stage of appearance of the accused, but it will be an abuse of the process of the Court, as the parties have already arrived at a compromise and there is less possibility of adducing any evidence against the petitioner No.3 by the vital witnesses of the prosecution i.e. the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2. Rather it will be an abuse of the process of the Court and the conviction of the accused/petitioner No.3 is also very bleak and remote at this stage. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire proceeding along with the FIR and the charge sheet may be quashed by applying the provision under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

Mr. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (5) SCC 364 in that context wherein it has been observed that there may be a quashment of proceeding in respect of non-compoundable offence on the basis of the compromise.

Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent submitted in this regard that though the matter has been compromised, but it is seen that the case has already been charge sheeted against the petitioner No.3, after finding prima facie case against him and the case is at the appearance stage. Accordingly, he insisted on call for the case record to know the actual facts of the case.

Page No.# 4/5

Hearing the submission of learned counsel for both sides, it is seen that the case has already been compromised between the parties and in pursuant to the said compromise, both the petitioner No.1 as well as the petitioner No.2 have sworn an affidavit stating that the case was lodged only due to misunderstanding and misguidance of some persons. Thus, it can be seen that even if the case is allowed to be proceeded further, there is very little chance of adducing evidence against the petitioner No.3 and in that case, the chance of conviction is very bleak and remote. Rather it will be an abuse of the process of the Court.

In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & another , reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 had laid down some guiding principle to consider the application under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the paragraph 61 of the said judgment reads as under:-

"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour 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 Page No.# 5/5

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 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

Considering the aforementioned judgment and all other aspects of the case and also considering the fact of compromise between the parties, it is seen that as per both the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2, the case was lodged due to misunderstanding and for misguidance and presently, the matter has amicably settled between the parties. So considering all the entire facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and other aspects of the case, I find it a fit case to invoke the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for setting aside and quashing the Charge-Sheet No. 228/2023, dated 26.06.2023 and the entire criminal proceeding of Sessions Case No.39/2025 (PRC Case No.1715/2024), arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No.2213/2022, pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

With the above observation, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant