Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010077002025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./440/2025 SOFIK ALI AND 6 ORS. S/O LT. BAJRUL HAQUE R/O DHIRENPARA TILA MASJID, P.S. FATASHIL AMBARI, R/O VIL- OSHITAPAR,P.S. GALAGGUNJ DIST. DHUBRI 2: DEBASIS BEHARA S/OJALAN DHAR BEHERA R/O ATHGAON PUKURIPAR OPP CLUB GHAR PERMANENT ADDRESS- BARPUKHURIYA NILAGIRI PATNA P.S. NIRAKARPUR DIST. KHOORDHA STATE- ODSIHA 3: SUNIL KARMAKAR S/O RAJU KARMAKAR R/O ATHGAON PUKHRIPAR OPP CLUBGHAR PERMANENT ADDRESS- 1 NO. SONAJULI P.S. DIMAKUCHI DIST. UDALGURI. 4: SARIN SURANA SARIN KUMAR SURANA S/O LATE HANUMAN MAL SURANA R/O FLAT NO. 301 Page No.# 2/8 CHETRIBARI GOLDEN HEIGHT FLAT OWNERS SOCIETY PS PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM 5: RAMESH KUMAR PIRTANI S/O LATE NANDA LAL PIRTANI R/O HOUSE NO. 104A CHETRIBARI GOLDEN HEIGHT FLAT OWNERS SOCIETY PS PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI (METRO) ASSAM 6: RAM ADHIKARI S/O LATE HARI ADHIKARI R/O CHETRIBARI GOLDEN HEIGHT FLAT OWNERS SOCIETY PS PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM 7: BIMALA DEVI W/O SRI DINABANDHU BARMAN HS ROAD SATRIBARI HOUSE NO. 26 GUWAHATI ASSAM- 78100 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, S K DAS,A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 10.04.2025 Heard Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the Page No.# 3/8 State. 2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the FIR of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No.81/2025 under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023. 3. On 24.03.2025 at about 4 P.M., repairing works was going on in a building called Sipani/Golden Height Building at Guwahati. Suddenly, a brick fell down upon the tin shed house of the informant. The brick pierced through the tin roof and hit an 8 year old young girl who was the daughter of the informant. On the same day at about 8 P.M., the girl succumbed to her injuries in the hospital. 4. Police registered the case being Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No.81/2025 under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023. The case is still under investigation. 5. The petitioners are the plumbers, President and Secretary of the said Building and the informant mother. They have entered into a compromise deed on 27.03.2025. All of them agreed that the incident was nothing but an unintentional accident. The said compromise deed is available in this record. 6. Now, all of them have come together and filed this application before this Court stating that the FIR deserves to be quashed because they have compromised the matter. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 8. On a plain reading of the FIR, it can be held that the police authorities erroneously registered the case under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023. The act of falling of a brick from a building, in the instant case, may be a negligent act on the part of the labourers who were working at that time. Therefore, this case should have been Page No.# 4/8 registered under Section 106 of the BNS, 2023 because the incident of falling of a brick from a building may be termed as an act of negligence. 9. Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is the erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Therefore, this Court will rely upon some judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered earlier in respect of Section 482 of the CrPC. 10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the 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 the criminal case would put the 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 Page No.# 5/8 and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 11. The Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise. 12. In respect of exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC (now 528 of BNSS, 2023), in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. [(2017)9 SCC 641], the Apex Court has held– “(i) 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; (ii) 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. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be 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; (iv) 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; (v) 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 Page No.# 6/8 formulated; (vi) 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 have 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; (vii) 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) 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; (ix) 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 is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state 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.” 13. In the case of Narinder Singh v State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Supreme Court observed that the timing of a settlement is of significance in determining whether the jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised. In the said context the Court further stated that “those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. On the other hand, where the prosecution Page No.# 7/8 evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits…” 14. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, (earlier it was Section 482 of the CrPC) has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the Page No.# 8/8 grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 15. This Court has already held that the said incident of falling a brick from a high rise building upon the iron/tin sheet roof of a house nearby was an accident. If the iron/tin sheet was strong enough, the brick could not have pierced through it and the minor girl would not have died. 16. Under the given circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no possibility of conviction of any person in the said criminal proceeding. Therefore, allowing such a proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 17. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The criminal petition is allowed accordingly. 18. The FIR of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No.81/2025 under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023, is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant