Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010271482024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1583/2024 MD HACHNINE AHMED AND 4 ORS. S/O LT. MOMIN UDDIN AHMED R/O VILL- BORIGAON P.S. MORIGAON SADAR, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM 2: MD. IFTIKAR AHMED S/O MD. HACHNINE AHMED R/O VILL- BORIGAON P.S. MORIGAON SADAR DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM 3: MD. SAHALOM AHMED @ SHAH ALAM S/O MD. HACHNINE AHMED R/O VILL- BORIGAON P.S. MORIGAON SADAR DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM 4: MD. IMTIHAR AHMED S/O MD. HACHNINE AHMED R/O VILL- BORIGAON P.S. MORIGAON SADAR DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM 5: MUSSTT. SALINA SULTANA D/O ATABUR RAHMAN R/O DACCAPATTY MASJID ROAD Page No.# 2/5 NAGAON TOWN P.S. NAGAON SADAR DIST. NAGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K JAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 17.07.2025 Heard Mr. S.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State. 2. This a joint application under Section 528 read with Section 359 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the proceedings of PRC No.1955/2023 arising out of Nagaon P.S. Case No.1113/2014 pending in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, Assam. 3. On 15.07.2014, the petitioner Salina Sultana had lodged an FIR before police stating that on 17.09.2008 she got married to the petitioner Iftikar Ahmed. The other petitioners of this case are the relatives of her husband. Salina Sultana has alleged Page No.# 3/5 that her husband along with his relatives physically and mentally harassed her for want dowry, for which she has already filed a police case being Morigaon P.S. Case No.317/2013. In that case, her husband Iftikar Ahmed was arrested by police and on her consent, he was released on bail. Thereafter, again he started to physically and mentally harass her. At that time, she was pregnant for 5 months and because of assault by her husband, she started to bleed. Thereafter, the petitioner divorced her by uttering three talaks. 4. Now, Salina Sultana, her husband Iftikar Ahmed and all his family members have come to this Court stating that they have compromised their disputes and they are now living happily. 5. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Jain has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court that was delivered in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the Page No.# 4/5 aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the 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. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” 8. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 )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. Page No.# 5/5 (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 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.” 9. Coming back to the case in hand, it is a dispute between husband and wife. They had compromised their disputes and have been living peacefully together. This Court is of the opinion that under circumstances of the case, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. So, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trail court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 10. This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The criminal petition is allowed. 11. Accordingly, the proceedings of PRC No.1955/2023 arising out of Nagaon P.S. Case No.1113/2014 pending in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, Assam, is quashed and set aside. The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant