Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010104832026 2026:GAU-AS:7830 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./801/2026 RAMESH CHANDRA GOEL SON OF LATE GOPAL RAM GOEL RESIDENT OF 1ST FLOOR, MADAN BHAWAN, J.P. AGARWALLA ROAD, SHANTIPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, DISTRICT - KAMRUP (METRO), PIN - 781009 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SNEHA GOEL D/O SHRI BAJRANG AGARWAL EX- W/O RAKESH GOEL RESIDENT OF RAJAT SHANTI PLAZA FLAT NO. 3A KUMARPARA PANCHALI P.S. PANCHALI GUWAHATI DISTRICT - KAMRUP (METRO) PIN-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z ALAM, R ISLAM,P ROY,MS. S NAZNEEN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 05.06.2026 Heard Ms. S. Nazneen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. R. De, the learned counsel appearing for the informant/respondent no.2. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the proceedings of Panbazar P.S. Case No.409/2021. 3. The informant is the wife of Rakesh Goel. She had lodged an FIR before police alleging that she lived alone in her house along with her two minor daughters. Her husband is the owner of a shop called “Goel Enterprise”. She wanted to run the shop by removing her husband. 4. The present petitioner is her father-in-law. He did not agree with the informant i.e. the Respondent No.2. They had heated arguments. The Respondent No.2 alleged that the present petitioner had abused her with obscene language. 5. The Respondent No.2 further alleged that her brother-in-law Rupesh Goel is also associated with her father-in-law. The brother-in-law also insulted her by throwing abusive language at her. According to the Respondent No.2, the present petitioner being her father-in-law and her brother-in-law along with other family members had thrown her out of the shop of her husband. 6. Mr. De appearing for the Respondent No.2 has submitted that she has already compromised the matter with the present petitioner and other family members. Mr. De Page No.# 3/4 submits that the Respondent No.2 would have no objection if the criminal proceedings of Panbazar P.S. Case No.409/2021 are quashed and set aside. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 8. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC 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 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 Page No.# 4/4 vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the parties of this case have compromised their dispute. Under the given circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner in this case. Therefore, allowing criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court, would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. This is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 10. The proceedings of Panbazar P.S. Case No.409/2021, is quashed and set aside. The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant