Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010113142026 2026:GAU-AS:7941 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./810/2026 MD SAHAB ALI ALIAS SHAHAB ALI AND ANR S/O- LATE MAFAT ALI, R/O- NAGAON, P.S.- BARPETA, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM. 2: MOHIDUL ALI (MINOR) S/O- MD. SAHAB ALI R/O- NAGAON P.S.- BARPETA DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSAM 2:TANMANA SHARMA D/O- SHRI SIVA SARMAH R/O- H.NO.19 BYE LANE-3 BISHNU RABHA PATH BELTOLA TINIALI. P.S.- BASISTHA DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. GUWAHATI-78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS F HUSSAIN (R2),MR S M ABDULLAH P (R2) Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing Respondent No.1 as well as Mr. S.M. Abdullah P, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the FIR dated 24.05.2026 registered as Basistha P.S. Case No.169/2026 under Sections 281/125(b) of the BNS, 2023. 3. On 21.05.2026, a two wheeler vehicle bearing Registration No.AS05G5717 driven by the petitioner Md. Sahab Ali @ Shahab Ali had hit a 75 years old man called Siva Sarmah. He sustained some injuries. 4. While filing the FIR, Smti. Tanmana Sharma, the daughter of the aforesaid Siva Sarmah has alleged that the two wheeler vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. 5. Today, Tanmana Sharma has filed an affidavit stating that she and the present petitioner have settled their dispute. She has claimed that she no longer interested in proceeding further with this case. Tanmana Sarma has submitted that the two wheeler vehicle was not driven by the present petitioner rather it was driven by a minor boy. 6. I have heard the learned counsels of both sides. 7. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Page No.# 3/4 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: “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 Page No.# 4/4 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.” 8. 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. 9. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that since both sides have compromised their dispute, 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. 10. This Court is of the opinion that this a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 11. Accordingly, the FIR dated 24.05.2026 registered as Basistha P.S. Case No.169/2026 under Sections 281/125(b) of the BNS, 2023, is quashed and set aside. The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant