Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010181582026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1203/2026 MAMITA PAUL AND ANR D/O- LATE BISHAMBHAR PAUL, RESIDENT OF VILL. PANIBHARA, (BEKIRPAR), P.S. DHOLAI, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM 2: SITESH PAUL S/O- SATINDRA PAUL R/O- VILL. RAMPRASADPUR (PAULBASTI) P.S. DHOLAI DIST.- CACHAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M S MAZUMDER, A W BARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 09.09.2026 Heard Mr. AW Barbhuiya, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Page No.# 2/5 Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 Read With Section 438/442 of the said Code as well as Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside and quashing of the criminal proceeding instituted vide PRC No. 675/2023 arising out of Dholai PS Case No. 113/2018 registered under Sections 120(B)/376/493/313 of the IPC. The petitioners have also challenged the charge sheet submitted on 31.07.2022 arraying the petitioner no.2 as the accused person. The ground for challenging the said FIR, charge sheet and the continuance of the PRC Case mentioned above and for quashing of the same is on the settlement being reached between the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.1 is the informant and petitioner No.2 is the accused person. The instant petition is filed both by the victim as well as the accused person and the same is a joint petition. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1, it was specifically stated that she was fully authorized by petitioner no.2 to file the same. 3. The fact of the case is that on 15.05.2018, petitioner no.1 lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Dholai Police Station, Cachar stating inter alia that for about three years, she was maintaining relationship with the accused person i.e. petitioner no.2 and that she entered into physical relationship with him and also that she got pregnant due to the said relationship. She submit that she went for abortion on the ground that the petitioner no.2 had promised to marry her but then later it is alleged that petitioner refused to marry her. She also stated that unable to get any reliefs, she approached the President of Women Organization and the meeting was held but then the accused person i.e. petitioner no.2 although came to the meeting but left before the conclusion thereof. On receipt of the said information, the police registered the case as Page No.# 3/5 Dholai PS Case No. 113/2018 under the provisions of law as mentioned above. 4. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet on 31.07.2022 vide charge sheet no. 123. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an affidavit was sworn by petitioner no.1 on 29.07.2026 stating inter alia that she had love affairs with petitioner no.2 and that due to misunderstanding, she lodged the FIR on 15.05.2018, which was registered and on completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted and the case is pending before the Additional CJM, Cachar vide PRC No. 675/2023. She further stated in the said affidavit that the misunderstanding was settled and they are back into relationship with each other. She also stated that she had no grievance against the petitioner no.2 and she is not willing to proceed with the said case i.e. PRC No. 675/2023. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Mumbai Vs. Narendra Lal Jain & Ors. Reported in (2014) 5 SCC 364 had held that if a case is settled between the parties and the accused person accepts the liability, the High Court in its inherent power can quash the case, more so to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to serve the ends of justice. He as such submits that on the basis of the settlement, the said case may be quashed. 6. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that although cases of private nature can be quashed but cases which involves offences against the society at large and is connected with heinous offences cannot be quashed by the High Court by exercising its power under the inherent jurisdiction. He relies on the judgment of Parbatbhai Aaahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Vs. State of Gujarat Reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, wherein the Apex Court had stated that in case of serious Page No.# 4/5 offences, the matter cannot be settled amongst the parties. 7. I have heard the Counsels and also have gone through the record. 8. It is specifically seen that the instant petition has been filed jointly by both the petitioner and the accused person as petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 respectively and petitioner no.1 i.e the informant had sworn in the affidavit stating that she had lodged the FIR on a misunderstanding and that the misunderstanding was settled and that they are having relationship as before. She also had stated that she was misguided and she lodged the FIR and that she had no grievance against the petitioner no.2. In Parbatbhai Aaahir (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also held that in certain criminal cases the overwhelming or predominant element showing a civil dispute or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavor or where the issues are private in nature, the High Court in its inherent power can quash the criminal proceedings. It was also held by the Supreme Court that in cases where possibility of conviction is remote and the continuance of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice, the same can also be quashed. 9. In the instant case, it is seen that the issue was between the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 with regard to a relationship between them and the relationship had continued for years together and the same shows that it is private in nature. It can also be seen from the facts and circumstances of the case that there is almost no possibility of conviction as the informant had stated in her affidavit that she lodged the FIR on a misunderstanding and on being misled by others. It can also be seen that the continuance of the criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice to both the petitioners in view of the fact that it was stated by the petitioner no.1, they are continuing with the relationship like before. Page No.# 5/5 10. In view of the same, this Court finds it fit to quash the proceedings between petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2. In view of the same, it is directed that the FIR registered on 15.05.2018 as Dholai PS Case No. 113/2018 as well as the charge sheet submitted in pursuance to the said FIR vide charge sheet no. 123 dated 31.07.2022 as well as the criminal case being PRC No.675/2023 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar and all the subsequent orders passed therein are quashed for the ends of justice. 11. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant