Gauhati High Court
Page No. 1/12 vs The State Of Assam on 11 August, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/12
GAHC010179492024
2025:GAU-AS:11021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1097/2024
ABED ALI SARKAR AND 10 ORS
S/O LATE FAJAR ALI SARKAR
R/O VILL- HATIJANA
2: RUSTAM ALI
S/O NASHER ALI
3: SALAM ALI
S/O NASHER ALI
4: SANOWAR HUSSAIN
S/O OMAR ALI
5: REJJAK ALI @ ABDUL REJJAK
S/O LATE RAJAB ALI
6: ABDUL KARIM SARKAR
S/O LATE RAJAB ALI
7: SABDUL ALI
S/O SYED ALI
8: KADDUS ALI
S/O LATE JUWAD ALI
9: SHAJAHAN ALI
S/O OMAR ALI
10: SURJAT ALI
S/O ALLAL UDDIN
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL- HATIJANA
11: SAIFUL ISLAM
S/O HAZRAT ALI
Page No. 2/12
R/O VILL- KHANDAKARPARA
ALL ARE P.S. HOWLY
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N
AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT
Date : 11.08.2025
Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, State of Assam.
2. The instant criminal petition is preferred by the petitioners, eleven in nos., to invoke
the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
[BNSS], 2023 with a prayer to set aside and quash the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case no.
4477/2015, which arose out of Howly Police Station Case no. 432/2015, and which is
presently pending before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta.
3. It is stated that on 14.07.2015, the petitioner no. 1 as the informant lodged a First
Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Howly Police Station alleging inter-alia
that at around 08-00 a.m. on 14.07.2015, the accused persons, named in the FIR, forcefully
entered into a plot of land, which was in the possession of the informant’s family. In the FIR,
the informant had named fifteen persons as accused. The informant had alleged that after
entering into the plot of land, the accused persons had, at first, assaulted two brothers of the
informant and caused injuries on their persons. The accused persons had thereafter, also
assaulted the informant’s mother and another brother. On receipt of the said FIR, the Officer
Page No. 3/12
In-Charge, Howly Police Station registered the same as Howly Police Station Case no.
432/2015 under Sections 447/326/325/34, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and investigation ensued.
4. After completing the investigation in connection with Howly Police Station Case no.
432/2015, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case submitted a charge-sheet under Section
173[2], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC‘ or ‘the Code’, for short] vide Charge-Sheet
no. 214/2015 on 31.08.2015. In the Charge-Sheet, out of the fifteen accused persons
originally named in the FIR, only ten were charge-sheeted stating that sufficient incriminating
materials were found against only ten of them for committing the offences under Sections
147/148/149/447/325/324/323, IPC. The charge-sheeted accused persons are : [1] Surjat Ali
[Petitioner no. 10 or P-10]; [2] Md. Rustam Ali [P-2]; [3] Salam Ali [P-3]; [4] Sanowara
Hussain [P-4]; [5] Rezzak Ali [P-5]; [6] Abdul Karim Sarkar [P-6]; [7] Sabdul Ali [P-7];
Kuddus Ali [P-8]; [9] Shajahan Ali [P-9]; and [10] Saiful Islam [P-11].
5. The afore-mentioned ten charge-sheeted accused persons have joined the informant,
Abed Ali Sarkar [the petitioner no. 1] to prefer the instant criminal petition jointly on the
ground that on the date of submission of the charge-sheet, the parties had amicably settled
the disputes between them by arriving at a mutual settlement. To give effect to such
compromise and settlement, the petitioner no. 1 has sworn an affidavit before the Notary on
31.08.2015 stating inter-alia that though he had filed an FIR on 14.07.2015, he had
subsequently compromised the matter as he found that the same was filed due to certain
misconception about the accused persons. The informant also stated that he was not
interested to proceed with the case as the informant.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the provisions of
Section 320, CrPC, the offences under Section 323, Section 325 and Section 447 of the IPC
for which the petitioner no. 2 to petitioner no. 11 are charge-sheeted are compoundable as
per the conditions prescribed therein. However, the other offences are not compoundable.
But, in view of the unconditional compromise arrived at the same can be set aside at and
quashed under Section 528, BNSS, which powers are synonymous with the powers under
Section 482, CrPC.
Page No. 4/12
7. It has been settled by a long line of decisions that the inherent powers under Section
482, CrPC is distinct and wider in amplitude than the power to compound offences under
Section 320, CrPC. The inherent powers of the Court available under Section 482, CrPC have
been discussed elaborately in a number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as
of this Court.
8. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in [2012] 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed and held as under :-
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus :
the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in
accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : [i] to secure the ends of
justice, or [ii] to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the
offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private
in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between
the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of
Page No. 5/12quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating
to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the
High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with
the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to
an end and if the answer to the above question[s] is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
9. After considering the decision in Gian Singh [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab , reported in [2014] 6 SCC 466, has
observed in the similar manner and the relevant parts of the said judgment are extracted
hereunder :-
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following
principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to
the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the
Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings :
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the
power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the
Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to
Page No. 6/12quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable,
where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is
to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for
quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be
to secure :
[i] ends of justice, or
[ii] to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High
Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like
the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise
between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when
the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would
put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307, IPC would fall in the category of heinous and
serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society
and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307, IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine
as to whether incorporation of Section 307, IPC is there for the sake of it or the
Page No. 7/12
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving
the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High
Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the
vital/delecate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect
of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of
this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong
possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the
former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings
whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the
plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At
this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the
parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future
relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or
not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is
arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still
under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to
quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this
stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or
the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in
exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the
circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution
evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at
the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a
position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether
the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases
where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would
Page No. 8/12
not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has
already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307
IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.
10. In Parbatbhai vs. State of Gujarat, [2017] 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed as under :-
16.1. Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision
does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in
the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information
report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at
between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction
for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the
power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. The power to
quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be
quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it
has to be exercised [i] to secure the ends of justice, or [ii] to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be
quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration
of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea
that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature
Page No. 9/12and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or
offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though
the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly
speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision
to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public
interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have
an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct
footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial,
mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of
the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and
the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9
above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the
State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between
private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or
economic system will weigh in the balance.
11. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in [2019]
5 SCC 688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed as under :-
15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point,
referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under :
15.1.That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
Page No. 10/12proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can
be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship
or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special
statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender;
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category
of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the
society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings
for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious
impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of
the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst
themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because
there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation
of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC.
For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury
sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge
sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible
when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in
paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh
Page No. 11/12
[supra] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature
and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is
required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused,
namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he
had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.
16. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal
proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even
when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter
into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis
of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the fire arm also in
commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of
the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a
settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has
mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code,
which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court has also failed to note the
antecedents of the accused.
12. There is no doubt to the position that the provisions contained in Section 528, BNSS
are pari materia to the provisions of Section 482, CrPC. In the affidavit sworn by the
petitioner no. 1 as the informant on 31.08.2015, he has categorically stated that he is not
interested to pursue proceedings in connection with Howly Police Station Case no. 432/2015
any further. It, thereafter, transpires that even if the proceedings of G.R. Case no. 4477/2015
is allowed to continue, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of the
criminal proceeding has the possibility of causing disbenefit and misery to the accused if they
are allowed to continue their participation in the proceedings of G.R. Case no. 432/2015, till
its conclusion.
Page No. 12/12
13. In view of the aforesaid fact situation obtaining in the present case; more particularly,
the offences for which the petitioner nos. 2 to 11 have been charge-sheeted with; and
disinclination of the petitioner no. 1-informant to continue further with the prosecution; and
in the light of the guidelines laid down in the above decisions of the Supreme Court as
regards requirement to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC in appropriate
types of case, this Court is of the considered view that the case in hand is a fit case where it
is necessary to exercise the inherent power. This Court is of the view that instead of allowing
the proceedings of Howly Police Station Case no. 432/2015 to continue further the interest of
justice will be best subserved if the said proceedings is quashed and set aside at this stage.
14. Accordingly, the FIR lodged in connection with Howly Police Station Case no.
432/2015; the Charge-Sheet no. 214/2015 and the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case no.
4477/2015 are set aside and quashed.
15. The criminal petition stands disposed of in the afore-stated terms. No Cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant