Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 17 February, 2026

                                                                Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010013362026




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

                         Case No. : Crl.Pet./101/2026

         ASMA KHATUN AND 2 ORS.
         D/O LATE IMAN ALI
         RESIDENT OF BEHARBARI, SONKUCHI, NEAR SPRING DALE SCHOOL, P.S.
         BASISTHA,DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, MOBILE NO. 7638846609

         2: ABU SAMA ALIAS ABU JAMA
          SON OF SAFER ALI
         PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BEHARBARI
          SONKUCHI
          NEAR SPRING DALE SCHOOL
          P.S. BASISTHA
          DIST. KAMRUP (METRO)
         ASSAM
          M. NO. 7638846609.
         PERMANENT ADDRESS-
         VILL- BHATNA PAITIRCHAR
          P.S. ALOPATI CHAR
          DIST. BARPETA
         ASSAM
          M. NO. 7099452715

         3: RAMISHA KHATUN ALIAS BAILA
         W/O LATE MAJIT ALI
         PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BEHARBARI
          SONKUCHI
          NEAR SPRING DALE SCHOOL
          P.S. BASISTHA
          DIST. KAMRUP (METRO)
         ASSAM
          M. NO. 7638846609.
         PERMANENT ADDRESS- VILL- PACHIM CHAISIMANA
          P.S. ALOPATI CHAR
          DIST. BARPETA
         ASSA
                                                                        Page No.# 2/6


            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N J DUTTA, M RAHMAN,MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M
ZAMAN,MR N AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, IMDADUL ISLAM




                                   BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

                                        ORDER

Date : 17.02.2026 Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner and. Mr. I. Islam, learned Counsel for petitioner no.1 and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

By this application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the criminal proceedings in PRC no. 2310 of 2025 pending before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kamrup(Metro), at Guwahati.

The said PRC case is in connection with Basistha P.S. case no. 564 of 2023 registered under Section 448/354/345(A)(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The petitioner has also challenged the charge sheet which was submitted in the aforementioned case. The main ground of challenge by the petitioners is that the case has been settled between the parties and that the informant who is the victim herself as sworn in an affidavit Page No.# 3/6

exonerating the accused persons from the said case. This petition is also a joint petition filed by both the accused and the victim. The case started with an FIR lodged on 18.09.2023 by petitioner no.1 wherein she stated that two days back i.e. on 16.09.2023 about 05:15 am, when she opened the gate and was washing her hands, petitioner no.2 trespassed into her room, grabbed her from behind and tried to rape her without her will. The informant further stated that on the same day at around 07:00 pm petitioner no.3. called her to a tea stall and when she reached the tea stall, the accused persons told her not to file any case against them and that they brutally assaulted her also and tried to kill her and had snatched the earring from her and when the public gathered the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. The police on receipt of the said ejahar investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet on 30.01.2024 by charge sheet no. 48 of 2024. Thereafter the proceedings started before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup and the cognizance of the offence under Section 323/447/354/354(A)(i) and

(ii) of IPC against both the accused persons.

Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that petitioner no.1 has filed an affidavit wherein she had stated that she had compromised the matter with the accused persons and that she had lodged an FIR on misunderstanding and miscommunication. She also stated that the matter was compromised by both the family members of the parties concerned and that she is not willing to proceed with the case and she desires to withdraw the same. The said affidavit was sworn in as petitioner no.1 which is represented by learned Counsel in the present proceeding. The learned counsel has placed a decision of this Court Page No.# 4/6

passed in Atikur Rahman Vs. State of Assam in criminal petition no. 1341 of 2022 by which the Hon'ble Court after taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court had quashed the entire criminal proceedings and allowed the petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed another judgement passed in Asfarul Islam Vs. State of Assam by which this Hon'ble Court had similarly on the basis of judgments of the Apex Court had interfered with the criminal proceeding instituted against the accused persons.

Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that the FIR in the instant case reveals not only the fact that petitioner no.2 had tried to rape the victim but also the fact that petitioner no.3 after calling the victim to a shop had assaulted her not only by petitioner no. 3 but also by petitioner no.2 and tried to kill her. In the said facts, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case cannot be compromised in as much as the Apex Court has time and again held that in case of grave offence no settlement can be reached amongst the parties.

I have heard the Counsels and have gone through the record.

It is noticed that the instant petition is a joint petition filed by both the victim and the accused persons and the victim is the petitioner no.1 here and the same victim has sworn in an affidavit declaring inter alia that she had filed a case in a misunderstanding and due to some miscommunication that she had compromised the matter with the accused persons and also that she is not willing to proceed with the case and Page No.# 5/6

desires to withdraw the same. In view of the said declaration, a conclusion may be deduced that continuance of the case before the Court of Law would not result in any positive manner in as much as the victim herself has declared that she won't continue with the case. It has been held by the Apex Court that in all cases where it is found that the same would not lead to any fruitful result and would result in wastage of time of the learned Court, the High Court by excercising the inherent power can disposed of the case on settlement being reached between the parties.

The Apex Court in Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 10 SCC 303 as held as follows "The High Court may within the framework of its inherent power quashed a criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or First Information Report, if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceeding justice shall be a casualty and ends justice shall be defeated."

In the instant case, it is seen that the settlement has been reached between the parties as could be seen from the affidavit and as such this Court deems it fit to quash the criminal proceeding challenged in the instant matter.

In view of the above and considering the view expressed by the Apex Court as well as for ends of justice, I am of the view that this is a fit case where extraordinary power under Section 528 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked.

Accordingly, petitions stands allowed.

The FIR of Basistha P.S. case no. 564 of 2023 dated 18.09.2023 Page No.# 6/6

registered under various sections of law of the IPC is quashed along with charge sheet no. 48 of 2024 dated 30.01.2024 registered under various sections of law of the IPC. Resultantly, the PRC case no. being 2310 of 2025 pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, No. 2 at Kamrup(Metro) at Guwahati under Sections 323/448/354/345/A(1)(2) of the Indian Penal Code also stands set aside and quashed.

The criminal petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant