Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010109962026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./831/2026 RAHUL RAJ S/O- VIJAY KUMAR SINHA R/O- VILLAGE - NONIYAR TOLA, BETTIAH, P.S- BETTIAH, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN, BIHAR-845438 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:ER MACHIYILE PAME DAUGHTER OF SRI JOSIAS JEME RESIDENT OF NEW BORO HAFLONG DIST-DIMA HASAO ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S E M AHMADIA, MR A SHAH,A AHMED,LEVIS HAOLAI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 27.08.2026 Heard Mr.S.E.M. Ahmedia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed invoking the provisions of Section 528, BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of an FIR, which was registered as Haflong Page No.# 2/5 P.S. Case No. 13/2026 by the respondent No. 2 on 12.03.2026. The case was registered under Sections 79/238 of BNS, 2023, read with Sections 66E/ 67 / 67A of the Information and Technology (IT) Act, 2000. 3. As per the allegation in the FIR, the present petitioner, while working as a Branch Manager of the SBI, Halflong Branch, took physical possession of the informant’s mobile phone for assisting her with the YONO SBI App and while assisting her, the present petitioner had retrieved private and sensitive media and transmitted this file to his personal device via WhatsApp. He subsequently, deleted the outgoing messages from the phone to hide the evidence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent and the petitioner have compromised the matter where the petitioner has deleted all the messages and the informant is no longer interested in pursuing the allegation against the petitioner herein. 5. To this effect, the original affidavit sworn by the informant is on record where he has stated that she no longer wished to proceed with the case or the investigation or any other proceedings and she expressed that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, even after it is charge sheeted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is recorded in the order dated 14.08.2026, the informant/ victim had appeared before this Court through V.C. from Pune and she had indicated her willingness to compromise the issue out of her own will. 6. I have the learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the materials placed before this Court and I have also considered the entire Page No.# 3/5 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.” “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- Page No.# 4/5 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.” “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" 7. Since the informant herself stated that she is not willing to proceed with the case, I deem it fit that the FIR dated 12.03.2026, which culminated in Haflong P.S. Case No. 13/2026 (G.R. Case No. 31/2026) is interfered with and quashed, as no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner to continue. Consequently, the charge sheet submitted, if any, shall also stand quashed. Page No.# 5/5 8. The criminal petition is allowed to extend indicated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant