Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010146932019 2026:GAU-AS:12107 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./265/2019 PANNALAL DEBNATH AND 4 ORS. S/O LATE NANIGOPAL DEBNATH, VILL-TUPKHANA, P.S. HAILAKANDI, DIST. HAILAKANDI, PIN-788151 2: KANU DEBNATH S/O LATE NANIGOPAL DEBNATH VILL-TUPKHANA P.S. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI PIN-788151 3: RUPAK DEBNATH S/O LATE NANIGOPAL DEBNATH VILL-TUPKHANA P.S. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI PIN-788151 4: MANNA DEBNATH S/O LATE NANIGOPAL DEBNATH VILL-TUPKHANA P.S. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI PIN-788151 5: JOHARLAL DEBNATH S/O FONIBHUSAN DEBNATH VILL-TUPKHANA P.S. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI PIN-78815 VERSUS Page No.# 2/9 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. (B) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT. OF ASSAM 2:SMTI REBA DASGUPTA W/O SRI DILIP DAS GUPTA HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD NO.-V P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI PIN-78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N S LASKAR, MR. R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. B CHOWDHURY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 24.08 . 2026 Heard Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment and order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Hailakandi in Criminal Appeal No. 02/2019, whereby the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the sentence imposed on the appellants under Section 149 of the IPC, but had upheld the judgment and order dated 02.07.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in G.R. Case No. 1219/2012 by which the petitioners had been convicted under Section 149/323 /325 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) years under Section 325 of the IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment Page No.# 3/9 for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for conviction under Section 323, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 3. The informant in G.R. Case No. 1219/2012 had lodged an FIR stating that on 15.11.2012 at about 7:30 p.m., the accused in the FIR/appellants in this appeal had assaulted her son with dao, spade, dagger, axe etc, at the Hanuman Temple, Hailakandi, as a result her son sustained injuries on the head, forehead, back, chest, hand, leg etc. The FIR so lodged culminated in Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 399/2012, registered under Section 147/ 148/ 149/ 341/ 326/ 307 IPC. 4. After investigation, a charge-sheet had been submitted. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, including the injured and a doctor of the hospital, who were not named by the I.O in his charge-sheet. One of the prosecution witnesses was declared hostile. The appellants herein, as accused, were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the incriminating materials, and they also refused to adduce evidence in their defence. After hearing the arguments for both sides, the learned Trial Court, i.e, the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, had found the petitioners to have committed offences under Section 149/ 323/ 325 of the IPC, and they were punished as aforesaid. 5. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate were pronounced vide order dated 02.07.2018., and the petitioners herein had thereafter preferred criminal appeal No. 2/2019 before the learned Sessions Page No.# 4/9 Judge. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, having considered all the relevant materials on record, had come to a conclusion that there was no fault in the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi; however, the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the sentence with regard to the commission of offences under Section 149 of the IPC. The present petitioners thereafter filed this revision petition assailing the order of the learned appellate Court. 7. By the order dated 27.06.2019 passed in I.A. Criminal No. 529/2019, the revision was admitted and, considering the nature of conviction and sentence, the petitioners herein were allowed to remain on previous bail. It has also come to notice that the present petitioners had initiated a proceedings against the son of the informant and the husband of the informant, in which they were also convicted, however, by order dated 11.02.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2016, the son of the informant herein, and husband of the informant herein, had been acquitted by recording the settlement of the disputes amongst the petitioners herein and the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2016. 8. Today, when the matter has been taken up, both the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties have submitted that the incident occurred in the year 2012, it is a very stale matter and except that appellant No.1, who had undergone two days custody during the investigation, none of the other petitioners had suffered any incarceration. The counsel for the parties have Page No.# 5/9 submitted that they are under specific instructions of their clients that neither of the parties would like to pursue the matter further and, in fact, both the parties have come to an amicable settlement It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners have learned their lesson and undertake to keep any ill will against each other in the future. 9. The learned counsel for both the parties has accordingly prayed that the petitioners herein may be not required to undergo any further sentence and they may be allowed to carry on their lives accordingly. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and I have also considered the entire material on record. In the case of Ram Gopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 14 SCC 531, the Apex Court has held as under : “11. True it is that offences which are "non-compoundable" cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 CrPC. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 CrPC, which is the exclusive domain of legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 CrPC, which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of "compoundable" offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 CrPC is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 CrPC in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any court and/or to secure the ends of justice.” Page No.# 6/9 “12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, even if the offences are non- compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyse the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.” “13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post- conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard-and-fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Laxmi Narayan.” Page No.# 7/9 “14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a "settlement" through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided" 11. The learned Trial Court and the learned appellate Court had both come to a finding that the scuffle between the son of the informant and the petitioners herein had resulted in the spur of the moment during the puja celebrations. 12. The learned Trial Court and the learned appellate Court had both noticed that, when the festivities were being brought to an end by taking the idols of the lady goddess for immersion, the fight had broken out. 13. It is no doubt apparent from the evidence led by the prosecution that the victim had received several injuries on his body during the scuffle/ fight and he had undergone treatment. It cannot, however, be overlooked that in the cross- case filed by them, the accused herein/petitioners herein had come to an understanding with the aforesaid victim, and the alleged victim had also, been earlier convicted by the learned Trial Court and at the appellate stage the proceedings had been closed by acquitting the victim since they had reached an amicable settlement with the petitioners herein. Page No.# 8/9 14. The incident is of 2012, the judgment of the learned Trial Court came in the year 2018, and the appeal came to be dismissed on 21.05.2019; however, as already recorded hereinabove, none of the convicts/petitioners herein had undergone the sentence of simple imprisonment since they were allowed to remain on previous bail by this Court when the revision was admitted. 15. In my considered view, requiring the petitioners herein to now undergo a sentence of imprisonment for a fight which occurred in the heat of the moment, would jeopardize the lives of their family, if not their career alone, and it is also an admitted position that the victim/respondents in this revision petition have desire to forgive and forget and to further lead a social life on mutual understanding. In such view of the matter, instead of delving into the merits of this revision petition to find out the correctness of the judgment delivered by the learned appellate Court below, I deem it fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. Since the respondents have also willingly concentrated on the nullification of the criminal proceedings. Punishing the petitioners herein at this stage, after more than 14 years of the alleged incident, would not, in my considered view, be justified; therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein through the FIR dated 16.11.2012. It should not be understood in any manner that any fault has been found either with the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court or by the learned appellant Court and the proceedings had been quashed, keeping in view the Page No.# 9/9 present status of the accused, the informant and the victim of the fight. 16. It is clarified that the present order of quashing is being passed by this Court having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 17. This Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly closed. 18. The petitioners would not be required to undergo any of the sentences imposed upon them, either by the learned Trial Court or upheld by the learned appellate Court. 19. The Registry to send back the records requisition from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi along with the copies of this order forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant