Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010037042024 2025:GAU-AS:3258 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./212/2024 INZAMAMUL HOQUE S/O JUBBAR ALI MANDAL VILL- KALAIRDIA, P.S. ALOPATI CHAR, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:NUR MOHAMMAD ALI S/O SAGAR ALI VILL- ALOPATI P.O. KALAIRDIA P.S. ALOPATI CHAR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781127 3:ANOWARA KHATUN S/O ABUL HUSSAIN VILL- NICHANAR CHAR P.O. KALAIRDIA P.S. ALOPATI CHAR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78112 Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S AHMED, MS. M. KHATUN,MR M RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M. KHATUN (R-2,3) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 24.03.2025 Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Ms. M. Khatun, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing the F.I.R. of Alopati Char P.S. Case No. 58/2022; Charge-Sheet No. 49/2022; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in PRC Case No. 1357/2023, under Section 279/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. 3. It is submitted by Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, that admittedly an accident took place and 2 (two) persons died in the said accident and on the basis of which, one F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent No. 2, who is the father of one of the deceased, and respondent No. 3 is the mother of another deceased. However, immediately after lodging of the F.I.R., both the parties had arrived at amicable settlement and they also filed an application before the Investigating Officer to withdraw the case, but their prayer was not Page No.# 3/6 considered and the case was accordingly investigated and Charge-Sheet was also filed against the petitioner. But, at present, the respondents have no grievances against the petitioner as the matter has already been settled and hence, the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak even if the case is allowed to be proceeded further. Rather, it will be an abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, he submitted that it is a fit case wherein the entire criminal proceeding, including the F.I.R. and the Charge-Sheet, may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. In support of his submission, Mr. Ahmed also relied on the 2 (two) decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court passed in Crl. Pet. No. 596/2019, decided on 17.06.2022, and Crl. Pet. No. 992/2023, decided on 09.01.2024, as well as the decision of this Court passed in Crl. Pet. No. 310/2024, decided on 20.09.2024, wherein similar kind of cases are being quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties. 5. Ms. Khatun, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, submitted that since the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, i.e. the informant/parents of the deceased, are not interested to proceed with the case further and in that context, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have already filed their affidavit stating that they have no objection in the event of allowing the present petition by quashing the F.I.R., Charge- Sheet and the subsequent criminal proceeding pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. Page No.# 4/6 6. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that 2 (two) persons died in the accident and the present 2 (two) respondents are not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. More so, the case of rush and negligent driving of the petitioner is a matter of trial and that may be decided by the learned Trial Court below only after recording all evidences of eye witnesses and other witnesses. Thus, it cannot be said that the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak without recording the evidence of the eye witnesses and accordingly he raised objection and submitted that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceeding by invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the materials available on record and it is seen that the present respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are the parents of the deceased and the F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent No. 2. However, at present, both the parties have amicably settled the matter and the parents of the deceased, i.e. respondent Nos. 2 & 3, do not want to proceed with the case further. 8. In the case of Gian Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that “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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the Page No.# 5/6 criminal proceeding.” 9. Further, in the case of Narender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and when the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal cases would be futile, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the criminal proceeding in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court in non-compoundable cases, when the complainant does not want to continue with their own case after their settlement outside the Court. It is further held that “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 aforesaid two objectives.” 10. Here in the instant case, it is seen that though the allegation brought against the accused/petitioner is serious in nature, but the both the accused and the informant, i.e. the parents of the deceased, already settled the matter outside the Court and hence, it can be held that the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak as it is unlikely that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, i.e. the parents of the deceased, will depose against the accused/petitioner and in that event allowing the proceeding to continue before the learned Trial Court below would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Page No.# 6/6 11. In view of above and also considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case laws referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be meted out if the petition is allowed. Therefore, I find that this is fit case where the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceeding pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The F.I.R. of Alopati Char P.S. Case No. 58/2022; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in PRC Case No. 1357/2023, under Section 279/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, stand set aside and quashed. 12. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant