JUDGMENT : Mr. M.R. Pathak, J. Heard Mr. Apurba Kumar Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. SM Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. The respondent No. 2, on 16-06-2014 lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Samaguri Police Station against the petitioner and three others stating that on 13-04-2014 around 01:00 pm while returning her home from the house of her aunt (Salana Market) with an amount of Rs. 90,000/-, the accuse petitioner with another obstructed her from the front side and took her to Nagaon in a motor bike and kept her at Nagaon for two days. During the said period the accused persons threatened her by various ways and forced her to lodge a case against her husband in Court and further compelled to execute a written Talaknama. In the said FIR the informant respondent No. 2 also alleged that for about two months the accused person kept her as captive at different places at Tarabari, Nagaon, Sonarbali etc and threatened to kill her. She also informed that the accused persons are wicked in nature, threatened to kill her and that there is a possibility of breach of peace and as such requested he authority to take appropriate action. Accordingly, Samaguri Police Station Case No. 152/2014 under Sections 366/506/500/34 was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons of said case. 3. After investigation of the case, the Investigation officer of the Case vide No. 98/2015 dated 31-05-2015 filed the Charge Sheet in the said Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014 under Sections 366/500 against the petitioner only and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kaliabor, Nagaon vide his order dated 29-06-2015 passed in GR Case No. 322/2015 (arising out of said Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014) took cognizance of the offences under Sections 366/500 IPC against the petitioner, who was shown as an absconder in the said Charge Sheet, and issued summons to him. 4. 4. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner, the sole accused of said Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014, preferred this Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC, for setting aside and to quash the proceeding of said GR Case No. 322/2015 as well as for quashing the order dated 29-06-2015 passed by learned JMFC, Kaliabor with regard to taking of cognizance of offence under Section 366/500 IPC against him and also against the issuance of summon for his appearance in the said case. 5. The contention of the petitioner herein is that informant/respondent No. 2's husband and he are jointly in the bamboo business for long and known to each other. On 07-05-2014, the husband of the informant respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Kaliabor, Nagaon alleging that on 13-04-2014 around 01:00 pm the petitioner sent him to load previously chop up bamboos in a vehicle and during this period, the petitioner, with the help of another accused eloped with the wife (respondent No. 2 herein) of the complainant with an amount of Rs. 90,000/- together with ornaments and valuable articles worth of Rs. 30,000/-. Said complaint of the husband of the respondent was registered as CR Case No. 100/2014 under Sections 379/498 IPC. However, as the said complainant remained absent in the said CR Case No. 100/2014 without any steps, the learned JMFC, Kaliabor, Nagaon on 11-11-2014 passed an order as 'Hence the Case is filed'. 6. The petitioner further contended that on 26-05-2014 the respondent No.2 as a complainant lodged a complaint before the learned SDJM, Kaliabor, Nagaon alleging that she got married with her husband Arfan Ali about eight years back and since last two years, while she was living with him, her said husband use to physically torture her with help of the other co-accused on suspicion that she is having a relation with his nephew and further harassed and physically tortured her demanding dowry amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. Said complaint of the respondent No. 2 was registered as CR case No. 121/2014 under Sections 498A/494/323/34 IPC, wherein the petitioner was not an accused. Even in this CR Case as the said complainant respondent No. 2 remained absent without any steps, the learned JMFC, Kaliabor, Nagaon on 07-11-2014 passed an order as 'Considering all those aspects the Case is filed'. 7. Mr. Even in this CR Case as the said complainant respondent No. 2 remained absent without any steps, the learned JMFC, Kaliabor, Nagaon on 07-11-2014 passed an order as 'Considering all those aspects the Case is filed'. 7. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner also placed before the Court regarding statements of two independent witnesses of said Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014 (GR Case No. 322/2015) recorded under Section 164 CrPC, recorded on 02-02-2015 by the JMFC, Kaliabor to show that respondent No. 2 of her own came to one of the said witness, namely, Md. Abu Kalam and requested him to call the petitioner with whom she intend to marry and then he called upon the petitioner in his house and accordingly he came and in presence of the said witness and the respondent No. 2, the petitioner refused to marry said respondent and thereafter, said Kalam sent back both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 back to their village. 8. The other witness Mohar Uddin in his statement before the Magistrate stated that after coming back from the house of said Kalam a village trial (bichar) was held with regard to the petitioner and respondent No. 2, in which the husband of the respondent No. 2 demanded money to accept her and as the said demand could not be fulfilled, she left with the petitioner and to his knowledge, after staying with the petitioner for some time, she came back to her previous husband Arfan and then lodged the case. 9. According to the petitioner, in the complaint case dated 07-05-2014, that was preferred by the husband of the respondent No. 2 allegation was against his own wife, the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner which was registered as CR Case No. 100/2014 under Sections 379/498 IPC, wherein the alleged incident stated to have been occurred on 13-04-2014 at around 01:00 pm, when the petitioner sent him for their joint business work. Again in the FIR dated 16-06-2014 pertaining to said Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014 (GR Case No. 322/2015) the respondent No. 2 also alleged that incident occurred on 13-04-2014 at 01:00 pm. Again in the FIR dated 16-06-2014 pertaining to said Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014 (GR Case No. 322/2015) the respondent No. 2 also alleged that incident occurred on 13-04-2014 at 01:00 pm. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be at two different places at the same time and entire proceeding of said GR Case No. 322/2015 arising out of Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014 is a false one and as such the said proceeding and the orders passed therein need to be set aside and quashed. 10. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 informant of said Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014 (GR Case No. 322/2015) submitted that an affidavit on behalf of said respondent No. 2 was filed in the matter on 31-08-2016 wherein she stated that the present petitioner, she herself and her husband are from same village and are maintaining cordial relationship and due to some misunderstanding and instigation of some other persons, she had to lodge the FIR. In the said affidavit, the respondent No. 2 also stated that both the petitioner and her husband are business partners for a long period and just of frustration and conspiracy of some others cases had been filed against the petitioner. She also stated that due to intervention of their family members and local village members both the parties have amicably settled their disputes in a village mel (people's assembly) and she expressed her open mind not to pursue the said Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014 against the petitioner. It is also stated that a compromise deed dated 18-07-2016 have already been executed between her and the petitioner in that regard. 11. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and others v. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 . 12. In the Case of Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 , Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed that - "The rule of inherent powers (under Section 482 CrPC) has its source in the maxim "Quadolex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo ipsa, ess uon potest" which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. .... The inherent power under Section 482 can be exercised by the High Court (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code; or (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court; or (3) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In relation to exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, it has been observed in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [ (1977) 4 SCC 551 ] that the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party and that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and that it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. Vide (1) Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purhsottam [ AIR 1958 SC 376 ]; (2) Khushi Ram v. Hashim [ AIR 1959 SC 542 ] and (3) State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala [ (1979) 2 SCC 305 ]. This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage." 13. Section 366 of the IPC is a non compoundable offence. With regard to the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 have laid down that - "54. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non. 55. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection. 56. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. 56. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided. 57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR 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 proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed. 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. 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 quashing, 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 questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 14. In the case of Yogendra Yadav (supra), the Judgment of Gian Singh (three Judges Bench decision) (supra) has been considered. 15. In the case of Yogendra Yadav (supra), the Judgment of Gian Singh (three Judges Bench decision) (supra) has been considered. 15. Further, another three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopakumar B. Nair v. CBI, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 800 have clarified that - "14. .... What really follows from the decision in Gian Singh (supra) is that though quashing a non-compoundable offence under Section 482 CrPC, following a settlement between the parties, would not amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 320 of the Code, the exercise of the power under Section 482 will always depend on the facts of each case. Furthermore, in the exercise of such power, the note of caution sounded in Gian Singh (para 61) must be kept in mind. This, in our view, is the correct ratio of the decision in Gian Singh." 16. From the above and from the statements of the independent witness recorded by the magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, it seen that the informant, respondent No. 2 was not under captive of the petitioner and she left with the petitioner on her own due to failure on their part to meet the demands raised by the husband of the said informant to accept her. Further, the said informant respondent No. 2 in her affidavit filed in the matter clearly stated that she lodged the FIR in question pertaining to Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014 (GR Case No. 322/2015) due to some misunderstanding and instigation of some other persons and as the matter between her, her husband and the petitioner had already been amicably settled, she is not wiling further to pursue the said GR Case No. 322/2015 and to that extent a compromise deed dated 18-07-2016 have already been executed between her and the petitioner. 17. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and that as the matter has not yet been committed to the learned Court of Sessions since Section 366 IPC is triable by Court of Sessions, charges in the said GR Case No. 322/2015 are yet to be framed and that the trail of the case has not yet began and further in view of the legal position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, noted above, the Court is of the opinion that chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceeding of said GR Case No. 322/2015 arising out of Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014 to continue. 18. As such, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 482 CrPC and to secure the ends of justice, the proceeding of said GR Case No. 322/2015 arising out of Samaguri PS Case No. 152/2014, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaliabor, Nagaon including the order dated 29-06-2015 are hereby set aside and quashed. Consequently, any order passed in the said proceeding after order dated 29-06-2015, if any, are also set aside and quashed. 19. Accordingly this criminal petition stands allowed.