Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010256302025 2025:GAU-AS:16720 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1526/2025 T. PRABHAKARAN SON OF K THIRUVENGADAM RESIDENT OF ARMY NO 15443051F NK AA T PRABHAKARAN 166 MILITARY HOSPITAL SATWARI CANTT JAMMU VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR THROUGH THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:THENMOZHI V WIFE OF MR SARAVANAN RESIDENT OF PLOT NO 2 SURVEY NO 256/5D BLUE CITY KOLATHUPALAYAM PUNJAI KALAMANGALAM VILLAGE MADAKKURICHI TALUK TAMIL NAD Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R YASIN, MD. A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 04.12.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. R. Yasin for the petitioner, who has filed this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for quashing the proceeding of PRC Case No. 1226/2025 arising out of Basistha PS Case No.595/2023,underSections406/417/418/294/293/506/507. 2. Mr. A. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. Baishya is present for the respondent State. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that this matter has been amicably settled between both the parties. 4. The Annexure-2 of the petition is an affidavit submitted by the respondent no.2, and she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she has no objection if the entire proceedings are quashed as she is not interested to proceed with this case. 5. The allegations against the petitioner are that petitioner and the victim had a live-in-relationship after they met through a matrimonial website. The victim/respondent no.2 started to reside with the petitioner in his private accommodation. The petitioner’s family member did not approve their relationship and finally the petitioner on the behest of his family members started to block the victim’s phone calls. The victim sank into mental depression as the petitioner did not solemnize his marriage with her and this impelled her to lodge the FIR against the petitioner. Now the victim is married to another person and both the petitioner and the victim have moved on. Page No.# 3/4 6. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC, 303, wherein it has been observed that :- “58.Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR 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 proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” 7. Reverting back to this case it is held that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have buried the hatchet. Further proceedings will indeed be an abuse of the process of the Court. Possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak, thereby, this is a fit case to invoke the inherent Page No.# 4/4 jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 8. The entire proceeding of PRC Case No. 1226/2025, is hereby set aside and quashed. 9. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant