Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010128392026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./910/2026 JESRAJ MEDHI KASHYAP ALIAS JESRAJ MEDHI AND 3 ORS. S/O PALLABI MEDHI, R/O PANJABARI, NABAJYOTI NAGAR, NEAR GOLDEN TOWER, P.S SATGAON, GUWAHATI-781037, DISTRICT KAMRUP M, ASSAM. 2: BISHAL TALUKDAR S/O SURESH TALUKDAR 3. R/O PANJABARI NABAJYOTI NAGAR P.S SATGAON GUWAHATI-781037 DISTRICT KAMRUP.M ASSAM 3: RAHUL HAJONG S/O TAPAN HAJONG R/O PANJABARI NABAJYOTI NAGAR P.S SATGAON GUWAHATI-781037 DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM. 4: MINTU DAS S/O DHANU RAM DAS R/O HOUSE NO.17 BAGHARBARI SHIV MANDIR PATH PANJABARI P.S SATGAON GUWAHATI-781037 DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSA Page No.# 2/4 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P, ASSAM 2:NAYAN JYOTI NARZARY S/O AMULYA NARZARY R/O HOUSE NO.17 PANJABARI ROAD NEW CHACHAL KHANAPARA P.S DISPUR GUWAHATI-22 DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MS. N.A. BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. I RAHMAN(R2) :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. I. Rahman, the learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the proceedings of Dispur P.S. Case No.350/2026, under Sections 126(2)/118(2)/351(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.2045/2026). 3. On 31.05.2026 at about 11.30 P.M., while the Respondent No.2 Nayan Jyoti Page No.# 3/4 Narzary was driving his car to a petrol pump, he was stopped by the present petitioners and they assaulted him. 4. Today, Mr. I. Rahman appearing for Nayan Jyoti Narzary has submitted that both sides have compromised the matter and also entered into a written deed of mutual agreement. The agreement shall form a part of the record. 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 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 Page No.# 4/4 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, when the parties have compromised their dispute, this Court is of the opinion that there is no possibility of conviction of anybody in this case in future. Therefore, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings of Dispur P.S. Case No.350/2026, under Sections 126(2)/118(2)/351(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.2045/2026), is quashed and set aside. With the aforesaid direction, the present criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant