Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010178362025 2026:GAU-AS:13862 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./987/2025 SAHED AHMED LASKAR ALIAS SAYED LASKAR AND 2 ORS. SON OF LATE AJIM UDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL- UTTAR KRISHNAPPUR PT.II, P.O. SONAI ROAD, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM 2: SMTI. LILY BEGUM LASKAR @ LILI BEGUM W/O SAHED AHMED LASKAR R/O VILL- UTTAR KRISHNAPPUR PT.II P.O. SONAI ROAD P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 3: TOUHID ZAMAN LASKAR @ TAUHID LASKAR R/O VILL- UTTAR KRISHNAPPUR PT.II P.O. SONAI ROAD P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:JAHANARA BEGUM W/O NAJRUL KHAN C/O KHAIRUL ALAM CHOUDHURY (KHUKON) R/O VILL- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PT.I OPPOSITE YASIN CHOUDHURY HIGH SCHOOL P.O. UTTARKRISHNAPUR P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 PIN-788005 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H BARBHUIYA, MS. N.A. LASKAR,MS. S. DEY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. T SK (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 18-09-2026 Heard Mr. N H Barbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S H Bora, the learned Addl. PP appearing on behalf of State respondent no. 1 and Mr. T Sk, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application u/s 528 BNSS praying for quashing the impugned Charge Sheet No. 143 dated 28.02.2025 arising out of Silchar P.S. Case No. 1984/2023 and the subsequent proceeding of PRC Case No. 991/2025 u/s 354A/323/294/34 IPC read with Section 75 of J.J. Act. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Barbhuiya that the FIR was lodged by the respondent no. 2 only due to some misunderstanding and under the instigation of other people. There was no such incident took place as alleged in the FIR. More so, the FIR was written in English and she can not read and write in English. However, on the instigation she lodged the FIR against the present petitioners. Later on she came to know that it was merely a misunderstanding against the accused/petitioner and she was instigated by one Phakija Amin Laskar @ Khusboo and only on her instruction and after consultation with the Advocate, she lodged the FIR. It is further stated by Mr. Barbhuiya that the Page No.# 3/4 respondent/informant had already filed their affidavit in writing, wherein the entire story is brought before the Court as to how the incident took place and under what misunderstanding the FIR was lodged. It is further stated that there was some altercation took place between the daughter of the respondent no. 2 along with the petitioner nos. 2 & 3, and out of anger, she returned home and injured herself on her hand with a blade. There was no such assault as alleged against the petitioners and it is only the victim herself inflicted injury by her own. However, after lodging of the FIR, the matter has amicably settled between the parties and hence the respondent no. 2 is also not interested to proceed with the case further. He further submitted that even if the case is allowed to be proceeded, there will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court as there is very less chance of deposing before the Court against the present petitioners and thus the chances of conviction is also very remote and bleak in the instant case. Mr. Barbhuiya accordingly submitted that it is a fit case in which the Charge Sheet along with the proceeding of the PRC case can be set aside and quashed by invoking power u/s 528 of BNSS. 4. Mr. Sheikh the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2/ the informant also narrated the same story and submitted that the respondent no. 2 coming to know about the actual fact of the case had already compromised between the parties and it was only due to misunderstanding and instigation, the FIR was lodged by the respondent no. 2 and hence by filing the affidavit, the respondent no. 2 had narrated the entire incident. Thus, it is submitted by Mr. Sheikh that the informant has no objection if the Charge Sheet and the pending proceeding before the learned Trial Court below is set aside and quashed. 5. Ms. Bora, the learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that apart from Page No.# 4/4 Section 354A/323/294/34 IPC, the case is also chare-sheeted u/s 75 of the J.J. Act with the allegation of assaulting a minor or juvenile. However, she submitted that if the parties have arrived at a compromise or settlement, the State has no objection in that regard. 6. Considering the entire submissions made by learned counsels for both sides, I have also annexed the case record and especially the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 and the informant. From the record it is seen that due to some misunderstanding and under the instigation of another person, the informant had lodged the FIR. But, at present they have amicably settled the case after coming to know about the actual incident which had happened on the day of occurrence. Thus, it is seen that the matter has amicably settled between the parties and hence the chances of conviction is very remote and bleak, even if the proceeding is allowed to be continued. So, considering all these aspects of this case and the view of the Apex Court expressed in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supple. 1 SCC 335 and the other aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that further proceeding of this case will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. In view of this, considering the nature of the case, which is private in nature as well as the compromise between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to quash the entire criminal proceeding, including the Charge Sheet No. 143 dated 28.02.2025 filed against the petitioners can be set aside and quashed by invoking the jurisdiction u/s 528 of BNSS. 8. With the above observations, the criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant