Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010047942023 2025:GAU-AS:11917 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./222/2023 JAYANTI PEGU AND 5 ORS. W/O- SRI DINESH PEGU, R/O- VILL.- BORFALLONG, P.S. GOHPUR, DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM 2: BALIN PEGU S/O- SRI BAGARAM PEGU R/O- VILL.- BORBEEL P.O. MERMUKH P.S. NARAYANPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3: SMT. NIJU PEGU W/O- SRI AKASH DOLEY D/O- SRI BALIN PEGU R/O- VILL.- LAKHIPUR P.S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM 4: HAREN MILI S/O- SRI NIRANJAN MILI R/O- VILL.- BORPHOLONG P.O. ELLENGI SATRA P.S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM 5: UPEN MILI S/O- LATE SATYABAN MILI R/O- VILL.- BORPHOLONG P.O. ELLENGI SATRA P.S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM 6: PRANAB MILI S/O- SRI PHULEN MILI R/O- VILL.- SWAGURI KUTUM GAON P.O. ELLENGI SATRA P.S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 3/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 03.09.2025 Heard Mr. L. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Borah, learned APP for the respondent State. 2. This joint application filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of Gohpur Police Station Case No. 291/2020, GR Case No. 323/2020, PR Case No. 133/2021 registered under Section 366/34 of IPC. 3. In the instant case, the victim girl as well as the informant and the father of the victim girl have joined together along with the accused persons to file the instant joint application. 4. The brief facts of the case were that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner No. 4, 5 and 6 by the petitioner No. 1, informant stating that the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 by force had kidnapped her niece, petitioner No. 3 on 06.08.2020 at about 4 pm using two bikes. On hearing the hue and cry of her niece, with the help of police personnel from Gohpur Police Station and her family members, they rescued her niece from the house of one Pusung Mili of Page No.# 4/7 Rawnamukh village. The accused persons fled away from the house of Pusung Mili after seeing the arrival of police and family members. 5. Accordingly, a case was registered at Gohpur Police Station on 07.08.2020, vide Gohpur Police Case No. 291/2020 under section 366/34 of IPC. A charge Sheet dated 31.12.2020 was subsequently filed vide Charge Sheet No. 260/2020, under Section 366/34 of IPC against the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case before the Trial Court is at the stage of appearance. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 (the accused persons) belonged to the same village and they are infact neighbors in the village. He further submits that the incident occurred due to certain misunderstandings and that the same misunderstandings have already been sorted out amongst the accused persons, the victim, victim’s father and the informant. Referring to a mutual agreement dated 19.01.2023, learned counsel submits that an agreement has already been arrived at between the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6. He further submits that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 do not have any complains, whatsoever at present against the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The victim girl, i.e. petitioner No. 3 has also made a statement in the aforesaid agreement that she Page No.# 5/7 is not willing to go ahead or proceed in the criminal case. 8. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the case has already been mutually compromised and the petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 do not have any grievances against the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6, taking the trial ahead will not serve any purpose, infact, that will cause undue hardships to the petitioner No. 4, 5 and 6. 9. Learned APP submits that since the accused persons and the victim’s family are, infact, neighboring people, if the proceeding before the Trial Court is set aside at this stage, she doesn’t have any objection. 10. This Court has heard the submissions made by the respective counsels as well as the materials on record. It is seen that the Charge Sheet is filed and the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are charged under Section 366/34 of IPC and Section 366 is a non-compoundable offence. 11. While dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR as well as the Charge Sheet so filed, wherein the offence is not compoundable, under Section 320 of CrPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, while referring to two earlier decisions of the Apex Court i.e. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Page No.# 6/7 Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that when the parties have reached at a settlement and on that basis the petition for quashing the Criminal Proceeding is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be : (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. It is further held that while exercising the power, the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid objectives. In the case of Laxmi Narayan (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that the power conferred under Section 482 of CrPC, to quash the criminal proceedings for Non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code, can only be exercised when the offence apparently is of civil character, particularly those arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes, and when the parties were willing to resolve their disputes amongst themselves. 12. In the instant case, it is apparent that the conflicting parties had already settled their disputes amongst them amicably and they are very much willing to stay as peaceful citizens in their neighboring surroundings in their village. Their understanding so arrived by them is being documented by way of a mutual agreement, which is annexed in the instant application. 13. After taking into account the facts in entirety and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also taking into account the fact that Page No.# 7/7 the matter has already been settled by the petitioners amongst themselves and since they are not willing to pursue the matter further, which actually arose from certain misunderstandings between the petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 and the petitioners No. 4, 5 and 6, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be served if the instant petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings in P.R. Case No. 133/2021, pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) Gohpur, Biswanath, Assam. 14. In view of the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed by quashing the aforesaid proceedings in PR Case No. 133/2021 pending before the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) Gohpur, Biswanath, Assam. 15. With the aforesaid observation, instant petition is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant