Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010188772023 2026:GAU-AS:10392 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./909/2023 SHAWKAT ALI KHAN S/O SANDESH ALI VILL- CHANPUR, P.O. BALIKURI P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM PIN-781319 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:KUSUM KAKATI W/O KUSHAL KAKATI VILL- PUB KHAGRABARI P.S. SIMLA DIST. BAKSA ASSAM PIN-781327 3:GAGAN THAKURIA S/OLATE GOLAK THAKURIA VILL- PUB- KHAGRABARI P.S. SIMLA DIST. BAKSA ASSAM PIN-78132 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS J HAZARIKA, MR. S AHMED,MR M RAHMAN,MS. M. KHATUN,MS N AKTAR Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, T UDDIN(R2,3),J BORAH(R2,3),P KALITA (r-2,3 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 28.07.2026 Heard Mr S Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam and Mr T Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR in Simla PS Case No. 57 of 2020, as well as the subsequent proceeding in PRC Case No. 386/2022, registered under Sections 279/304-A/338 IPC, pending before the learned CJM, Baksa at Mushalpur. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that an FIR was lodged by wife of the deceased person on 19.10.2020,stating inter alia, that on 01.09.2020, at around 04:45 pm, while her husband was proceeding through the road by riding his bicycle, the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AS-25 EC-2489, hit the husband of the informant from the backside resulting in his death in the hospital. It was also stated that another pedestrian was also hit by the said vehicle and the said pedestrian, namely, Gagan Thakuria, was injured and undergoing treatment. On receipt of the said ejahar, the Police registered a case as Simla PS Case No. 57 of 2020, under Sections 279/304A/338 IPC, as stated above. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on completion of investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet in the said case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the same, the parties Page No.# 3/4 entered into a settlement and that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the wife of the deceased person and the injured pedestrian entered into a settlement with the petitioner, who is the driver of the said vehicle which had hit the informant’s husband. 5. An affidavit was also filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, wherein it was stated that both the respondents have compromised the matter with the petitioner, namely, Shaukat Ali Khan, i.e. the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. On being compromise reached, the said respondents had approach the Officer-In- Charge of the Simla Police Station with a prayer for withdrawal of the said FIR, but the Officer-In-Charge of the said Police Station did not allow withdrawal of the same and had submitted charge sheet. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for both the respondents that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and as such, the respondents are agreeable to withdraw the FIR. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate his arguments, has submitted a number of judgments, wherein it is stated that in view of settlement reached between parties, the criminal case can be permitted to be withdrawn. 8. I have heard the learned counsels and I have gone through the records. 9. It is the settled position of law that on settlement, cases are permitted to be withdrawn, but the Hon’ble Apex court had streamlined the cases, which can be withdrawn and which should not be permitted to be withdrawn in normal circumstances. It is stated by the Apex Court that in cases of matrimonial disputes, civil disputes etc., the cases can be withdrawn between the parties on Page No.# 4/4 the settlement reached, but in case of heinous offences like rape, murder, cases should not be allowed to be withdrawn. In the instant case, however, it is seen that the petitioner, who is the driver of the vehicle, which had hit the victim had also sustained injuries and it is specifically stated in the FIR that the vehicle was driven at a very high speed and that the vehicle had lost control and had knocked the husband of the petitioner. This shows that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the driver of the vehicle to hit the victim or any other person and that it was in the nature of an accident. It is also stated by the parties concerned that the motor accident case had been registered and the parties have also settled the same and an award was granted. 10. In view of the said facts and circumstances, this Court quashes both the FIR registered as Simla PS Case No. 57/2020 as well as subsequent proceeding in PRC Case No. 386/2022. 11. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant