Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010141372025 2026:GAU-AS:12699 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./734/2025 SRI RAMAN CHOUDHURY S/O SRI AMAR KUMAR CHOUDHURY PERMANENT RESIDENT OF GAJ PURIYA ROAD, RAJA MAIDAM, P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT, DIST.JORHAT, ASSAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VANSHEE ELDORADO APARTMENT, MARATHAHALL I- SARTAPUR OUTER RING ROAD, CHANDRA LAYOUT, MARATHAHALL I, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:DR SWETA SADANI C/O SRI PREM RATAN SADANI R/O HOUSE NO. 27 SHRISTI DHARMESWAR DINESH OJHA PATH BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI, MR. R SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. N KOTHARI(R-2),MR Y KOTHARI(R-2),MR. D K KOTHARI (R-2),MR P PRAWAR(R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 02.09.2026 Heard Mr. R. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing respondent no. 1 and Mr. Y. Kothari, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2, i.e. the informant. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 read with Section 438 and Section 442 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the C.R. Case No. 146/2024, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 02.07.2024, by which cognizance was taken under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner. The said C.R. Case being C.R. Case No. 146/2024 is sought for quashing by the learned counsel for the petitioner only on the ground of settlement being reached between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit bringing into records, the said affidavit of settlement between petitioner and respondent no. 2. He by placing the settlement agreement has stated that both the parties have resolved that, all the cases pending between them would be settled before the Court and would be withdrawn by the respective parties. The learned counsel further submits that the C.R. Case No. 146/2024 is also in the list, which was supposed to be withdrawn by the party concerned in view of the settlement reached. He also submits that the petitioner had paid the respondent no. 2, an amount of Rs. 21, 51,000/- towards settlement of the monetory claims of respondent no. 2 arising out of matrimonial relationship. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, also agrees that the respondent no. 2, Page No.# 3/4 has entered into the settlement with the petitioner and that, all the cases pending between them would be withdrawn by respective parties. He has also supported the affidavit filed by the petitioner in the additional affidavit. 5. I have heard the learned counsels and have gone through the records; it is seen in the affidavit dated 27th of July, 2026, wherein, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had agreed that they will withdraw all the cases pending before the court between them. It is stated that, with intervention of elders, well wishers and counsels, the parties have agreed to amicably resolve their matrimonial disputes and to take all lawful steps for bringing the proceedings pending between them to an end. 6. It is also stated in the agreement that the petitioner had agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 21,51,000/- towards settlement of all claims and the said money was paid to respondent no. 2 by the petitioner, which is also conceded to by the counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. It is also seen that all the Stridhan articles were also taken back by the respondent no. 2 from the matrimonial house and the said list has been annexed to the additional affidavit, which shows that the petitioner has returned all the articles to the respondent no. 2 on 27.07.2026. 7. It is a settled position of law that, matrimonial disputes can be resolved and can be quashed on the settlement reached between the husband and the wife. It has been held in Parbatbhai Aaahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Vs. State of Gujarat Reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, as follows: "But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and Page No.# 4/4 prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. As such, this Court after noticing that, both the parties have decided to stay separately after putting an end to all the disputes and cases, this Court deems it fit to quash the instant case between the petitioner and respondent no. 2. As such, the C.R. Case No. 146/2024, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) is quashed along with the orders passed in the said case. 9. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant