Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 2 September, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010192612025




                                                                2025:GAU-AS:11799

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

                                Case No. : Crl.Pet./1075/2025

            SMTI TAMARANA NAGMANI AND ANR
            W/O SRI TAMARANA BALA SAPTHAGIRI
            D/O SRI P. APPA RAO
            PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
            R/O HOUSE NO. 7-14, NARSIPATNAM
            PEDDA BODDEPALLI, NEAR MARKET YARD, VISHAKAPATNAM, ANDHRA
            PRADESH-531116,
            PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
            R/O B.G. COLONY, MALIGAON, GOSHALA
            P.O. MALIGAON, P.S. JALUKBARI
            DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781011, PHONE NO. 8099734319

            2: SRI TAMARANA BALA SAPTAGIRI
             S/OLATE TAMARANA RAM BABU
            R/O HOUSE NO. 7-14
             NARSIPATNAM
            PEDDA BODDEPALLI
             NEAR MARKET YARD
            VISHAKAPATNAM
            ANDHRA PRADESH- 531116
            PHONE NO.9959615585

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. S BHUYAN, MS HIMADREE GOGOI,M. BORUAH

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

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


                                     ORDER

Date : 02.09.2025.

Heard Ms. S. Bhuyan, 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 Charge Sheet No.18/2024,, dated 31.05.2024, arising out of All Women P.S. Case No.28/2023, registered under Section 498A of the IPC and further proceeding of the PRC Case No.1652/2025, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, under Section 498A of the IPC.

It is submitted by Ms. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 is the victim/informant and the petitioner No.2 is the accused of this case and they have jointly filed the present petition for quashing the Charge Sheet No.18/2024, dated 31.05.2024, arising out of All Women P.S. Case No.28/2023 and further proceeding of the PRC Case No.1652/2025, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, under Section 498A of the IPC. She further submitted that due to some matrimonial dispute and misunderstanding, an FIR was lodged by the petitioner No.1 before the All Women Police Station and one D.V. Case was also filed by the present petitioner No.1. However, during the pendency of the D.V. Case, the matter has amicably settled between the parties and in pursuant to the settlement, they have approached the Court and accordingly, the case was Page No.# 3/5

referred for mediation where the matter has already been settled. The present petitioner No.1 also presently staying with the petitioner No.2 and she already left Assam and at present, she is staying with her husband/ accused at Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh. As both the petitioners have amicably settled the matter, the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak and at the same time, it cannot be expected that the petitioner No.1 will depose against the petitioner No.2, if the case is allowed to proceed.

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.2, after finding prima facie case against him and accordingly, he insisted on call for the case record to know the actual facts of the case.

Hearing the submission of learned counsel for both sides, it is seen that the case has already been compromised between the parties and due to some matrimonial dispute and misunderstanding, the FIR was lodged by the petitioner No.1 against the petitioner No.2. 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.2 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:-

Page No.# 4/5

"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 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 that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding 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.

Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for setting aside and quashing the Charge Sheet No.18/2024, dated 31.05.2024, arising out of All Women P.S. Case Page No.# 5/5

No.28/2023, registered under Section 498A of the IPC and further proceeding of the PRC Case No.1652/2025, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, under Section 498A of the IPC is allowed.