Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 17 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010013362026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./101/2026
ASMA KHATUN AND 2 ORS.
D/O LATE IMAN ALI
RESIDENT OF BEHARBARI, SONKUCHI, NEAR SPRING DALE SCHOOL, P.S.
BASISTHA,DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, MOBILE NO. 7638846609
2: ABU SAMA ALIAS ABU JAMA
SON OF SAFER ALI
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BEHARBARI
SONKUCHI
NEAR SPRING DALE SCHOOL
P.S. BASISTHA
DIST. KAMRUP (METRO)
ASSAM
M. NO. 7638846609.
PERMANENT ADDRESS-
VILL- BHATNA PAITIRCHAR
P.S. ALOPATI CHAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
M. NO. 7099452715
3: RAMISHA KHATUN ALIAS BAILA
W/O LATE MAJIT ALI
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BEHARBARI
SONKUCHI
NEAR SPRING DALE SCHOOL
P.S. BASISTHA
DIST. KAMRUP (METRO)
ASSAM
M. NO. 7638846609.
PERMANENT ADDRESS- VILL- PACHIM CHAISIMANA
P.S. ALOPATI CHAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSA
Page No.# 2/6
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, M RAHMAN,MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M
ZAMAN,MR N AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, IMDADUL ISLAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER
Date : 17.02.2026
Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner and. Mr. I.
Islam, learned Counsel for petitioner no.1 and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
By this application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the
criminal proceedings in PRC no. 2310 of 2025 pending before the learned
Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kamrup(Metro), at Guwahati.
The said PRC case is in connection with Basistha P.S. case no. 564 of
2023 registered under Section 448/354/345(A)(1)(i) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
The petitioner has also challenged the charge sheet which was
submitted in the aforementioned case. The main ground of challenge by
the petitioners is that the case has been settled between the parties and
that the informant who is the victim herself as sworn in an affidavit
Page No.# 3/6
exonerating the accused persons from the said case. This petition is also a
joint petition filed by both the accused and the victim. The case started
with an FIR lodged on 18.09.2023 by petitioner no.1 wherein she stated
that two days back i.e. on 16.09.2023 about 05:15 am, when she opened
the gate and was washing her hands, petitioner no.2 trespassed into her
room, grabbed her from behind and tried to rape her without her will. The
informant further stated that on the same day at around 07:00 pm
petitioner no.3. called her to a tea stall and when she reached the tea
stall, the accused persons told her not to file any case against them and
that they brutally assaulted her also and tried to kill her and had snatched
the earring from her and when the public gathered the accused persons
fled away from the place of occurrence. The police on receipt of the said
ejahar investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet on
30.01.2024 by charge sheet no. 48 of 2024. Thereafter the proceedings
started before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup and
the cognizance of the offence under Section 323/447/354/354(A)(i) and
(ii) of IPC against both the accused persons.
Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that
petitioner no.1 has filed an affidavit wherein she had stated that she had
compromised the matter with the accused persons and that she had
lodged an FIR on misunderstanding and miscommunication. She also
stated that the matter was compromised by both the family members of
the parties concerned and that she is not willing to proceed with the case
and she desires to withdraw the same. The said affidavit was sworn in as
petitioner no.1 which is represented by learned Counsel in the present
proceeding. The learned counsel has placed a decision of this Court
Page No.# 4/6
passed in Atikur Rahman Vs. State of Assam in criminal petition no. 1341
of 2022 by which the Hon’ble Court after taking into consideration the
judgment of the Apex Court had quashed the entire criminal proceedings
and allowed the petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed another
judgement passed in Asfarul Islam Vs. State of Assam by which this
Hon’ble Court had similarly on the basis of judgments of the Apex Court
had interfered with the criminal proceeding instituted against the accused
persons.
Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State,
however, submits that the FIR in the instant case reveals not only the fact
that petitioner no.2 had tried to rape the victim but also the fact that
petitioner no.3 after calling the victim to a shop had assaulted her not
only by petitioner no. 3 but also by petitioner no.2 and tried to kill her. In
the said facts, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
case cannot be compromised in as much as the Apex Court has time and
again held that in case of grave offence no settlement can be reached
amongst the parties.
I have heard the Counsels and have gone through the record.
It is noticed that the instant petition is a joint petition filed by both
the victim and the accused persons and the victim is the petitioner no.1
here and the same victim has sworn in an affidavit declaring inter alia that
she had filed a case in a misunderstanding and due to some
miscommunication that she had compromised the matter with the accused
persons and also that she is not willing to proceed with the case and
Page No.# 5/6
desires to withdraw the same. In view of the said declaration, a conclusion
may be deduced that continuance of the case before the Court of Law
would not result in any positive manner in as much as the victim herself
has declared that she won’t continue with the case. It has been held by
the Apex Court that in all cases where it is found that the same would not
lead to any fruitful result and would result in wastage of time of the
learned Court, the High Court by excercising the inherent power can
disposed of the case on settlement being reached between the parties.
The Apex Court in Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in
2012 10 SCC 303 as held as follows “The High Court may within the
framework of its inherent power quashed a criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint or First Information Report, if it is satisfied that on the face of
such settlement there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being
convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceeding justice shall be a
casualty and ends justice shall be defeated.”
In the instant case, it is seen that the settlement has been reached
between the parties as could be seen from the affidavit and as such this
Court deems it fit to quash the criminal proceeding challenged in the
instant matter.
In view of the above and considering the view expressed by the
Apex Court as well as for ends of justice, I am of the view that this is a fit
case where extraordinary power under Section 528 of the Cr.P.C. can be
invoked.
Accordingly, petitions stands allowed.
The FIR of Basistha P.S. case no. 564 of 2023 dated 18.09.2023
Page No.# 6/6
registered under various sections of law of the IPC is quashed along with
charge sheet no. 48 of 2024 dated 30.01.2024 registered under various
sections of law of the IPC. Resultantly, the PRC case no. being 2310 of
2025 pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, No. 2 at
Kamrup(Metro) at Guwahati under Sections 323/448/354/345/A(1)(2) of
the Indian Penal Code also stands set aside and quashed.
The criminal petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
