Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010092052026 2026:GAU-AS:14725 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./649/2026 DEEPAK SHARMA SON OF SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA ADDRESS- C/O HILLS TRADE AGENCIES, 4A, 4TH FLOOR, UNIQUE AVENUE, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781006 VERSUS JIAUR PASA S/O LATE SALIM PASA ADDRESS- PROPRIETOR AT M/S PASA CONSTRUCTION, BARKURA, JYOTINAGAR, WARD NO. 8, NALBARI TOWN, P.O. NALBARI,DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781335 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS N BEGUM, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A PHUKAN, AMICUS CURIAE, MD S HOQUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 01.10.2026 1. Heard Ms. N. Begum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner Page No.# 2/4 has prayed for quashing of Complaint Case No. 106/2025, as well as the order taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section 314 of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent orders passed in the said case. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the complainant who is a businessman had purchased an Apollo Model WMM 100 Wet Mix Plant 100 TPH from the petitioner’s company on 07.08.2023 and had signed all the documents pertaining to the purchase of the same. It is the further case of the petitioner that the complainant had stated in the complaint that he had paid the entire consideration amount of Rs. 8,37,952/- which was duly deposited in the account of the petitioner’s company. However, it is alleged by the complainant in the complaint that although the entire consideration amount had been paid the plant was not delivered. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was ready and willing to deliver the plant and had accordingly issued a notice dated 12.06.2024 requesting the complainant to authorize a person to visit the petitioner’s premises and take delivery of the plant within a period of 15 days. It was also stated in the said notice that in the event the complainant failed to authorize any person to take delivery of the plant, the petitioner would be left with no option but to forfeit the amount paid by the complainant. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the complainant did not authorize any person to take delivery of the plant and thereafter a second notice dated 04.07.2024 was issued requesting the complainant to take delivery of all the components of the plant within a period of seven days. However, the complainant did not comply with the said notice. Page No.# 3/4 6. It is further submitted that the complainant thereafter issued a legal notice dated 03.01.2025 calling upon the petitioner to deliver the plant. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequently the parties arrived at a settlement whereby the petitioner agreed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the purchase of the plant. In pursuance thereof the said amount was refunded to the complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also acknowledged receipt of the same. 7. In view of the aforesaid settlement, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as private respondent/complainant submits that the matter may be closed as the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. It is further submitted that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and does not have any impact upon society at large and, therefore, the same may be permitted to be settled between the parties. 8. It has been held in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows – “(vi) In the exercise of the power Under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the Page No.# 4/4 inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.” 9. In view of the fact that the amount paid by the complainant has been refunded by the petitioner and the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, the proceedings are liable to be brought to an end. 10. In view of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court accordingly quashes the proceedings in C.R. Case No. 106/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalbari, Assam. Consequently, the order dated 18.02.2026 taking cognizance is also set aside and quashed along with all subsequent orders passed in the said case. 11. The petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant