Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010206062025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1149/2025 SUNIL NARZARY ALIAS SUNU NARZARY AND ANR S/OLT. KARNA NARZARY R/O UZANBAZAR, JAHAJ GHAT, P.S. LATASHIL, PIN-781001, MOBILE NO. 6003563923 2: MRS. JYOTI NARZARY @ JYOTI KUMARI W/OMR. SUNIL NARZARY @ SUNU NARZARY D/O MR. PARESH NATH CHAUDHURY R/O UZAN BAZAR JAHAJ GHAT P.S. LATASIL PIN-78100 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MR. PARESH NATH CHOUDHURY S/OLT. LAXMAN CHOUDHURY R/O UJAN BAZAR JAHAJ GHAT P.S. LATASIL PIN- 781001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MS. A LALA,MR D CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. P DUTTA (R-2) Page No.# 2/9 Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 20.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the Judgment ? : N/A Whether the full Judgment has been pronounced ? : Yes :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) 20.08.2026 Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No.2. 2. The instant criminal petition has been filed jointly by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside the PRC Case No. 2995/2021, arising out of Latasil P.S. Case No. 25/2010, registered on the basis of FIR dated 05.02.2010, under Sections 366/376 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the FIR dated 05.02.2010 was lodged by the informant, who is the father of the petitioner No.2, alleging that at about 4:00 Page No.# 3/9 p.m. on the same day, his daughter (petitioner No.2) was kidnapped by the accused (petitioner No. 1), who is stated to be a neighbour of the informant. It was further alleged that, after the alleged disappearance of petitioner No.2, the informant and his family members made efforts to trace her and the accused, but allegedly could not locate either of them. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered Latasil P.S. Case No. 25/2010 under Sections 366/376 of the IPC. The matter was duly investigated, and upon completion of the investigation, Charge-Sheet No. 78/2021 dated 30.09.2021, under Sections 366/376 of the IPC, was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, for trial. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 24.12.2021. 5. Mr. Kataki, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner No.2 was aged about 18 years, 1 month and 18 days. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 subsequently got married on 08.02.2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals in the presence of their respective family members and relatives. Out of the said wedlock, they have been blessed with two daughters, and have been living together as husband and wife and leading a peaceful and happy matrimonial life. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings in PRC Case No. 2995/2021, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, would serve no useful purpose and would cause serious prejudice and disturbance to the settled matrimonial life of the petitioners. The continuation of such proceedings would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. Page No.# 4/9 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Madhukar & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7212 and 7495 of 2025, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415, decided on 14.07.2025, while considering the question of quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of an allegation under Section 376 of the IPC, has held that the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Though an offence under Section 376 IPC is grave and heinous and ordinarily cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise between the parties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised that, in exceptional and peculiar circumstances, where the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the complainant is no longer willing to pursue the prosecution, continuation of the criminal proceedings may serve no meaningful purpose and may amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of the impugned proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would unnecessarily disturb the settled matrimonial and family life of the petitioners. In the present case also, the petitioner No. 1 has settled his life with petitioner No. 2, and the parties have been living together in a matrimonial relationship, having been blessed with two children. 7. Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that since the matter is between the wife and the husband and the dispute has been mutually settled between the parties, considering the harmony life and welfare of their children and as the informant and the victim have expressed that they have no further grievance against the accused petitioner No. 1 (husband) and does not want to pursue the matter any further, she has no objection if the Page No.# 5/9 prayer of the petitioners quashing the proceedings of the case is allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the Informant submits that Informant has already filed an Affidavit stating that he does not want to pursue the case and he does not have any grievance against the petitioner No.1 in the present fact and circumstances of the case. 8. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and has also gone through the materials placed before this Court. TCR produced have been perused. 9. On the agreement of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court has decided to dispose of the matter at the admission stage itself. 10. It is submitted that the petitioners have already amicably settled the matter amongst themselves and the informant do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 11. Although the offence under Sections 366/376 of the IPC are non- compoundable offences, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the catena of judgments, including the decision in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that in cases involving certain matrimonial disputes where the parties have amicably settled the matter, the High Court in exercise of the inherent powers provided under Section 498 of the Cr.P.C. (528 of BNSS, 2023) can quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. 12. In view of the resolution of the dispute and considering that the offence alleged to have been committed is not a heinous crime having a serious impact on society, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is one Page No.# 6/9 where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 can be invoked, as the chances of conviction are far too bleak and remote and the continuance of such proceedings in the present case would be futile and an abuse of the process of law. 13. The law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the parties under Section 528 of the BNSS has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. The paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “15. 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: 15.1. 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; 15.2. 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; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Actor the offences Page No.# 7/9 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; 15.4. Offences under Section 307IPC 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 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; Page No.# 8/9 15.5. 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.” 14. In view of the aforesaid resolution of the dispute and considering that the offence alleged to have been committed is not a heinous crime having a serious impact on society rather elopement of couple and consequent marriage, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is one where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 can be invoked, as the chances of conviction are far too bleak and remote, as the Informant is not interested in pursuing the case. The continuance of such proceedings in the present case would be futile and an abuse of the process of law. 15. Having regard to the facts and considering that the petitioners have filed this petition jointly after amicably settling the disputes between the husband, wife and the informant (father), the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would only cause harassment to the parties, which would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Further, taking into account the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases of Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra) and Gian Singh (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant case is one where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS could be invoked. Consequently, the Page No.# 9/9 proceedings in PRC Case No. 2995/2021, arising out of Latasil P.S. Case No. 25/2010, registered on the basis of FIR dated 05.02.2010, under Sections 366/376 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, are hereby set aside and quashed. 16. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant