Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010039692026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./300/2026 SNEHA GOEL AND ANR W/O RAKESH GOEL, RESIDENT OF RAJAT SHANTI PLAZA, FLAT NO.3A, KUMARPARA PANCHALI, P.S. - BHARALAMUKH, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), PIN -781009 2: RAKESH GOEL SON OF RAMESH GOEL RESIDENT OF 1ST FLOOR MADAN BHAWAN J.P. AGARWALLA ROAD SHANTIPUR GUWAHATI DISTRICT KAMRUP (M) PIN 78100 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z ALAM, MS. S NAZNEEN,MS. D PATHAK,MR. R DE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 10.03.2026 Heard Ms. S. Nazneen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.1489/2021 under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. 3. The wife had lodged the FIR against her husband. She alleged that her husband had physically and mentally harassed her. She has claimed that her husband was maintaining illicit relationship with many married and unmarried women. Ultimately, the wife along with her two children had left her matrimonial house. 4. Now, both the husband and wife have come together to this Court with this petition stating that they have compromised their dispute. To that effect, they have entered into a written agreement before the Mediation Centre of this Court. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 6. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 ) has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraphs 102 and 103 of the judgment read as under: Page No.# 3/4 “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” Page No.# 4/4 7. The Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise. 8. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that there is no possibility of conviction of any person in this case. Therefore, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 9. This Court is of the opinion that this a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 10. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.1489/2021 under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, is quashed and set aside. The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant