Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010004232012 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./155/2012 MADHAB SAIKIA and 2 ORS S/O SRI MOHAN SAIKIA R/O NO.2 UPPER TORANI, P.S. MERAPANI, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, 2: SMTI NOMALI SAIKIA W/O SRI MOHAN SAIKIA R/O 2 UPPER TORANI P.S. MERAPANI DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM 3: SMTI MENTU SAIKIA D/O SRI MOHAN SAIKIA R/O 2 UPPER TORANI P.S. MERAPANI DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M SARANIA, MR.S U AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 05.06.2025 Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. The petitioners were convicted under Section 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Golaghat in GR Case No. 199/2006. An appeal was filed and the learned appellate court was affirmed the said judgment. Thereafter, the respondent and his wife have entered into the compromise and now they are living together happily even during pendency of the appeal. Mr. Sarania has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was rendered in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 10 SCC 303. Paragraph 57 of the said judgement is quoted as under: “57. 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, Page No.# 3/3 because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” This court is of the opinion that compromise of the respondent and his wife should be accepted as they have been living peacefully. Therefore, their compromise is accepted. The criminal revision petition is disposed of on compromise. Accordingly, the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Golaghat in GR Case No. 199/2006 is set aside and quashed. Subsequently, the Judgment and Order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2007 is also set aside. The present criminal revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant