Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010043722022 2025:GAU-AS:13571 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./190/2022 SACHINDRA DEY S/O SRI SATYENDRA DEY, R/O WARD NO. 4, NEAR POST OFFICE, P.O. AND P.S.-DHEKIAJULI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784110 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SMTI. MUNMUN BANIK D/O SRI BHARAT BANIK R/O WARD NO-08 P.O. P.S.-KHARUPETIA DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN-78411 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SARMA, MR. R DE,MS. B MAHANTA,MS. B BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. K SARMA (Res. 2),MR. S BORUAH (Res. 2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 16.09.2025 Heard Mr. R. De, learned counsel assisted by Ms. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Page No.# 2/11 Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner herein Sachindra Dey, invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, is seeking quashing of the charge sheet No. 06/2021 dated 31.01.2021 filed against him under Section 498(A)/379 of IPC and the case in the form of PRC No. 841/2021, pending before the learned CJM, Sonitpur. 3. The respondent No. 2 Smti. Munmun Banik is stated to be presently the ex-wife of the petitioner. On 10.10.2020, she had filed an FIR before Dhekiajuli Police Station with certain allegations resulting in Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 632/2020 under Section 498(A)/379 IPC. The investigation of the same, resulted in a charge sheet (C.S. No. 6/2021) dated 31.08.2021 against the present petitioner and charge sheet was filed under Section 498(A) of IPC. Subsequently, the aforesaid PRC was registered as already stated above. 4. Both the learned counsels for the parties have placed before the Court a deed of settlement dated 11.03.2025 which was entered into pursuant to mediation in the Mediation Centre of this Court. As per that settlement (para 3), the parties are going to approach the concerned learned court for divorce. In this context, it is submitted that, accordingly the parties did so and now the parties are divorced by mutual consent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to para/clause 8 of the settlement in which it is stated that – In view of the settlement made by the Parties, they will approach Page No.# 3/11 the Hon’ble Court and submit a joint prayer for closing the Crl.Pet. No. 190/2022 pending before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as well as PRC No. 841/2021 pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur. 6. In terms of this settlement, the petitioner is now seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the proceeding before the court. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that he is representing the wife of the petitioner, who has no objection in the said prayer, having participated and the agreed to the terms of the agreement. 7. The law of quashing pursuant to settlement between the parties is no longer res integra and it has been crystallized through some leading cases of the Hon’ble Superme Court. Three such leading cases are Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. The relevant paragraphs may be gainfully reproduced hereunder- In the case of State of M.P. (supra) – “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 Page No.# 4/11 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 the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences 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 307 IPC 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/delicate parts of Page No.# 5/11 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 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 impact 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.” In the case of Gian Singh (supra) – “57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by Page No.# 6/11 the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 58. 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 Page No.# 7/11 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.” In the case of Narinder Singh (supra) – “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. 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 Page No.# 8/11 (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. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences 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. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 Page No.# 9/11 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 proving 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/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other Page No.# 10/11 hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” 8. In terms of the principles laid down in these decisions, there is no longer any doubt that non-compoundability of an offence would not come in way of quashing of the same. However, in the other two decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters for acceptance of an agreement for quashing. Offences of heinous nature and having societal impact, have been held to be outside of the ambit of such powers of quashing. However, cases of private nature or overwhelmingly of a civil matter or dispute within families – the quashing of which pursuant to an agreement would not have any significant adverse societal impact have been held to be within the ambit of the parameters laid down for such quashing. 9. In the backdrop of these principles, the facts and circumstances which have emerged in the present case, would fall within the permissible parameter for quashing, in my considered view. The parties have mutually Page No.# 11/11 arrived at a settlement in the Mediation Centre of the Court. In the meantime, as part of that settlement, they dissolved their marriage through mutual consent. In the said situation, allowing the prosecution for trial to continue would be an abuse of the process of law, especially in the overloaded dockets of criminal courts, in our system. 10. Therefore, I find this to be a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 as it existed then [now, Section 528 BNSS]. Accordingly, charge sheet vide No. 06/2021 dated 31.01.2021 arising out of Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 632/2020 and consequent proceedings in PRC No. 841/2021 pending in the court of learned CJM, Sonitpur are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 11. The instant criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant