Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010266882025 2026:GAU-AS:8537 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1537/2025 GITURAJ LAHKAR S/O LT. UTPAL LAHKAR, R/O PASCHIM BORAGAON NATUN BASTI, P.S. GARCHUK, P.O. MALIGAON RAILWAY HEAD QTR. DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN 781011 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. 2:MS KARISHMA BHARGAV D/O SMTI JONALI DEVI R/O KAMAKHYA DHAM P.O. KAMAKHYA P.S. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P GOGOI, MR. B. DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 15.06.2026 Heard Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 r/w Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with prayer for quashing of the FIR No. 600/2024 registered under Section 316 and 318 (4) of the BNSS, 2023 at Jalukbari Police Station along with Charge sheet No. 438/2024, and the entire proceeding pertaining to PRC No. 2910/2025. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a contractual employee of Gauhati University, Education Department and is currently under suspension. He belongs to a respectable family, having no criminal antecedents, and is sole earning member of his family. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 29.11.2024 respondent No.2 (the informant) Ms. Karishma Bhargav, D/o- Smti. Jonali Devi, R/o Kamakhya Dham, P.O. Kamakhya, P.S.- Jalukbari, Dist.- Kamrup (M), Assam lodged a complaint at the Jalukbari Police Station alleging inter alia that:- The accused petitioner had fraudulently looted Rs.18,000/-(eighteen thousand) from the respondent No.2 in the name of admission in Gauhati University. Page No.# 3/5 On the basis of the said complaint, after a preliminary inquiry, the Officer in charge of Jalukbari Police Station registered Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 600/2024 on 01/12/2024 under Section 316/318(4) of the BNS and commenced investigation. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, on 01.12.2024. That pending investigation of the case the respondent No.2 resolved and compromised the dispute with the petitioner and executed a notarised affidavit on 03.12.2024 declaring that she no longer wishes to pursue the case. It is submitted that on 04.12.2024 the respondent No.2 also filed a petition No.4640/24 under section 359(2) of the BNSS for compounding of the offence punishable under section 316/318(4) of the BNS, before the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kamrup(M), at Guwahati, as the parties had amicably resolved the dispute. 6. On 04.12.2024 the learned Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), after considering the materials on record and the affidavit submitted by respondent No.-2, allowed the accused petitioner to go on bail. However, the petition No. 4640/24 filed by the respondent No.2 for compounding of the offence was rejected by the learned Court on the ground that the offence under Section 316/318(4) of the BNS are non-compoundable offences. Subsequently charge-sheet has been submitted in the case under Section 316/318(4) BNS. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the sections under which the case is registered i.e., Section 316/318(4) BNS are compoundable on the application of the complainant with the leave of the Court. Page No.# 4/5 7. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned Court below has rejected the application for compounding by holding that both the sections are non-compoundable. 8. The Section 316 BNS defines the offence of criminal breach of trust and this not the penal section. Although the charge-sheet has been filed, only the section defining the offences has been mentioned therein i.e., Section 316 BNSS and no penal section has been mentioned. 9. Hence, as far as the offence of criminal breach of trust is concerned, no penal offence can be said to exist against the present petitioner either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet. Insofar as Section 318 of the BNS is concerned, the same defines the offence of cheating. 10. The case has been registered under Section 318(4) BNS. As per Section 359(2) BNSS the said offence is compoundable by the person cheated with the permission of the Court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has clearly erred in holding that the offence is not compoundable. Whether permission for compounding is to be granted or not is to be decided by the learned Magistrate before whom the case is pending. Accordingly, I consider it fit to remand the matter to the learned Magistrate for a fresh decision. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order in so far as it has rejected the prayer for compounding is concerned is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Court below for a fresh decision after hearing the parties as per law. Page No.# 5/5 12. This petitions stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant