Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 6963 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 3 September, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010141652025




                                                                 undefined

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

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./756/2025

            ASHISH SAHA ALIAS ASHISH KR SAHA
            S/O ANANTA KR SAHA,
            R/O- VILLAGE- JHARPARA PART II,
            P.S- ABHAYAPURI, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM

            2: KANIKA RAY
             D/O LATE BALEN CHANDRA RAY
             R/O VILLAGE - ABHAYAPURI
            WARD NO-3
             P.S- ABHAYAPURI
             DIST-BONGAIGAON
            ASSA

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP BY PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B HALDAR, MR B KARDONG,MS S. BASAK

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
                                                                             Page No.# 2/6

                                   BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

                                        ORDER

Date: 03.09.2025

Heard Mr. B. Halder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent.

2. This petition has been filed jointly by the petitioners, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing of the proceeding of PRC Case No. 317/2024, registered under Sections 417/493 of the IPC, which is presently pending before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(M), North-Salmara, Abhayapuri, arising out of Abhayapuri Police Station Case No. 168/2024.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, an FIR was lodged by the petitioner no. 2 before the Officer In-charge, Abhayapuri, on 08.07.2024, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner no. 1 was known to the petitioner no. 2 for the last 4 years; that the petitioner no. 1 established a friendly relationship with the petitioner no. 2 and had involved in physical relationship with each other due to false promise of marriage by the petitioner no. 1 to the petitioner no. 2; that consequently, the petitioner no. 2 became pregnant and thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 enticed to get her pregnancy terminated; that though a marriage agreement was made between the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2, the petitioner no. 1 though promised to marry her, did not marry her.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner no. 1 was arrested and subsequently, released on bail. After completion of the investigation, a Charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner no. 1, vide Charge-sheet No. 143/2024 on 28.07.2024. Accordingly, on filing of the Charge-sheet, PRC Case No. 317/2024 has Page No.# 3/6

been registered before the learned SDJM (M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri. The learned SDJM (M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri, took cognizance in the case against the petitioner no. 1, under Sections 417/493 of the IPC, vide order dated 06.08.2024. The case is presently pending for appearance before the learned SDJM (M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri. However, during the pendency of the investigation, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and accordingly, executed a Deed of Mutual Settlement on 23.06.2025 at Guwahati, whereby, the parties have mutually settled their differences.

5. The petitioner no. 2 had made a specific statement in the aforesaid Deed of Mutual Settlement that she does not want to pursue the case further and the petitioner no. 2 has no objection, if the petitioner no. 1, is acquitted in the aforesaid case.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that during the course of the trial and with the passage of time, both the petitioners have amicably resolved all the disputes and misunderstandings, and the parties have confirmed and declared that they have amicably resolved the dispute. Therefore, they wish to bring the proceeding, in the spirit of peace to a closure. He has submitted that no good purpose will be served in taking the proceeding pending before the Trial Court in PRC Case No. 317/2024 before the learned SDJM (M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri, arising out of Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 168/2024 ahead. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, he submitted that the instant petition may be allowed by quashing the entire proceeding, including the order of cognizance, vide order dated 06.08.2024, in PRC Case No. 317/2024, pending before the Court of learned SDJM (M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri, arising out of Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 168/2024.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, while relying on a case Page No.# 4/6

namely, Rahul Das & Anr., vs The State of Assam (Crl.Petn./842/2024), decided on 01.08.2024, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, submits that the instant case is also of a similar nature arising out of civil and personal disputes, which do not have any significant impact on the society as a whole.

8. Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. submits that in view of the Deed of Mutual Settlement dated 23.06.2025, arrived at by the parties, he does not have any objection if the instant petition is allowed as prayed for.

9. It is seen from the case of Rahul Das (supra) that, while allowing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., by quashing an FIR, this Court has relied on the case of Gian Singh vs State of Punjab ((2012) 10 SCC 303, the relevant portion of Paragraph No. 61 of the aforesaid judgment, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced herein below: -

"......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 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..."

10. In the instant case also, it is seen that the dispute between the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 is primarily of private nature and as stated above, the parties have already come to a mutual agreement by settling their whole differences by executing a Deed of Mutual Settlement.

11. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan, reported in Page No.# 5/6

2019 (5) SCC 688, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after taking into account the fact that the dispute between the parties arose from their matrimonial relationship and they had already resolved the entire dispute among themselves, even if the proceedings are allowed to be continued, the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak. In view of the aforesaid observation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the ends of justice, allowed the aforesaid petition. It may be relevant herein, to reproduce Paragraph No. 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."

12. In the instant case, this Court could not find any criminal antecedents of the petitioner no. 1. In fact, it is submitted before this Court that the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 have voluntarily agreed for the aforesaid mutual settlement. The petitioner no. 2 had made a categorical statement in the Deed of Mutual Settlement that the petitioner no. 2 does not want to proceed further with the aforesaid case i.e. PRC Case No. 317/2024, pending before the learned SDJM (M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri, any more.

13. 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 Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be served if this instant criminal petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside the proceedings pending before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), North Page No.# 6/6

Salmara, Abhayapuri.

14. In view of the aforesaid observation, the instant application is allowed by quashing the entire proceeding, including the order of cognizance,vide order dated 06.08.2024in PRC Case No. 317/2024, registered under Sections 417/493 of the IPC, presently pending before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), North-Salmara, Abhayapuri, arising out of Abhayapuri Police Station Case No. 168/2024.

15. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of in terms of the directions given above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant