Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010006352009 2025:GAU-AS:634 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./419/2009 KANAK SEN DEKA and ANR. S/O LT. GOURISEN DEKA AGRADOOT BHABAN, DISPUR-6. 2: SMTI BHANUSEN DEKA W/O SRI KANAK SEN DEKA AGRADOOT BHABAN DISPUR-6 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM DISPUR, ASSAM 2:DR. KAMALA KALITA S/O LT. TULSIRAM KALITA VILL- PACHGUMI P.O. AGGUMI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P P DAS, MR.P C GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S RANA(R-2),MR P KALITA (R-2),MR. S MUNIR(R-2), BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY For the Petitioners : Mr. S Das, Amicus. For the Respondent : Mr. P Barthakur, Additional PP Mr. S Rana, Advocate Page No.# 2/4 Date of Hearing : 22.01.2025 Date of Judgement : 22.01.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P Barthakur, learned Additional PP, Assam and Mr. S Rana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition is filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing a judgment dated 08.09.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 2, Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2003 whereby the conviction of the petitioners under Section 500/501 IPC passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar-II), Guwahati dated 21.05.2003 in CR case No. 3730C/1999 was upheld and thereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners were dismissed. 3. The further challenge is the judgment and sentence dated 21.05.2003 passed by the learned trial court. 4. The petitioner No. 1 is a known personality in Assam being a Senior Journalist and Ex-President of Assam Sahitya Sabha and the petitioner No. 2 is his wife. The respondent No. 2 is also a well known person, Ex- Cabinet Minister in the State of Assam. The respondent No. 2 initiated the prosecution against the petitioners herein by filing the aforesaid CR case No. 3730C/1999. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel representing the parties submits that the petitioners and the respondent informant during the course of this proceeding have amicably settled their dispute outside the court and submits that an affidavit has also been filed to that effect and accordingly Page No.# 3/4 a joint prayer is made that the present petition may be closed by acquitting the petitioners. 6. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is an inherent power and such inherent power can be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding or a criminal complaint on compromise but while doing so the court is to follow certain principles. Such power can be exercised, amongst others, when the offences alleged are overwhelmingly and predominantly civil in character or when such dispute arises out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and the parties have resolved the entire disputes amongst themselves. While exercising such directory power it is to be seen that such offences if compromised shall not affect the society at large. 7. In the case in hand, the dispute is relatable to an allegation of defamation and the party i.e. the respondent No. 2, who alleged to have been defamed has agreed that he will have no objection if the petitioners are acquitted inasmuch as to that effect an affidavit has already been filed. 8. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, as the parties have amicably resolved the disputes, in the event the offences are allowed to be compounded even at this stage same will have no serious impact on the society and therefore, the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be exercised in the given facts of the present case. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing the judgment dated 08.09.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 2, Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2003 and the judgment dated 21.05.2003 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar-II), Guwahati passed in CR case No. 3730C/1999 convicting and Page No.# 4/4 sentencing the accused petitioners under Section 500/501 IPC and accordingly the petitioners are acquitted from the charges. Bail bond stands discharged. JUDGE Comparing Assistant