Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010071332026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./547/2026 DR PRAKRITISH BORA AND ANR S/O LATE KARUNA KANTA BORA R/O HOUSE NO-105, GOPINATH BHAWAN, DR. B. K KAKATI ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, PIN CODE781007, P.S- PALTANBAZAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: ASHIMA BORDOLOI W/O DR. PARKRITISH BORA AGED ABOUT YEARS R/O HOUSE NO-105 GOPINATH BHAWAN DR. B. K KAKATI ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN CODE781007 P.S- PALTANBAZAR POLICE STATION DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I CHOUDHURY, R L CHUTIA,MS S RASUL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 21.04.2026 Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State. 2. This a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the proceedings of Paltanbazar P.S. Case No.358/2014 (corresponding to PRC Case No.1058/2021) pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S) No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 3. Both the petitioners are husband and wife. On 18.04.2014, the wife had lodged an FIR before the police alleging that under the influence of alcohol, her husband had physically harassed her. Unable to bear the activities of her husband, she had to leave her matrimonial home along with her two daughters. She further alleged that her husband even misbehaved with her father. 4. Today, both the husband and wife have come together to this Court stating that they have patched up and are now living happily. 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. Paragraph 102 of the judgment Page No.# 3/4 reads as under: “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.” 7. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that since both the husband and wife have settled their disputes, there is no possibility of future conviction of anybody in this case. So, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue Page No.# 4/4 before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 8. This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The criminal petition is allowed. 9. Accordingly, the proceedings of Paltanbazar P.S. Case No.358/2014 (corresponding to PRC Case No.1058/2021) pending in the court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S) No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant