Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010093062025 2025:GAU-AS:7442 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./515/2025 DEVASISH SINHA S/O- SATILAL SINGHA. R/O- BIDYANAGAR MANIPURI BASTI, P.S- RAMKRISHNA NAGAR , DIST- SRIBHUMI, PIN-788734 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM 2:RANJIT BIN S/O- HARIKISHAN BIN R/O- BIDYANAGAR MANIPURI BASTI P.S -RAM KRISHNA NAGAR DIST -KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-78873 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MD I H LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, A RAHMAN (R-2) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 06.06.2025 Heard learned counsel, Mr M Ahmed, for the petitioner, Devasish Sinha, who has filed this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, with prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of GR Case 488/2023, arising out of Ram Krishna Nagar PS Case No. Page No.# 2/5 42/2023, registered under Sections 279/304 (A) of the IPC. 2. Heard Mr D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam/respondent No. 1 and Mr A Rahman, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Ranjit Bin. 3. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 4. It is submitted at the Bar that the informant’s mother met with an accident and died as a result of the said accident. The petitioner was riding the motorcycle, bearing Registration No. AS-24IB-3172, which was involved in the accident and the respondent No.2, i.e., the informant’s mother, Rajkumari Bin, died as she was knocked down by the motorcycle. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-5 of the petition, which reveals that the informant/respondent No. 2 was not aware that his mother met with an accident, as he was not present at the place of occurrence. Through the affidavit, it is also submitted that the respondent No. 2 has no objection, if the entire proceeding is quashed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Eliyas Hussain –Vs- State of Assam and Another; wherein vide order dated 21.08.2023, passed in Criminal Petition No. 384/2023, it was observed that- “13. From the materials available on record including the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, this Court is of the view that the matter relates to disputes 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 Page No.# 3/5 petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised as held in State of Madhya Pradesh –Vs- Laxmi Narayan and Others reported in 2019 5 SCC 688”. 7. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh –Vs- Laxmi Narayan and Others; reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 that- “13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have Page No.# 4/5 resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) 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 impart 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.” 8. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the instant case is a matter, which is private in nature and do not have a serious impact on the society at large. Both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and it appears that possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak, as the informant is not willing to proceed against the Page No.# 5/5 petitioner. Thus, further proceeding will indeed be an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings and thereby, the further proceedings arising out of Ram Krishna Nagar PS Case No. 42/2023, incidental to GR Case No. 488/2023, under Sections 279/304(A) of the IPC, is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. In terms of the above discussions, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant