JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam; and Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. The criminal petition under Section 528 , Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [ BNSS ], 2023 is preferred seeking setting aside of the criminal proceedings of Police Report Case [PRC] no. 422/2021, presently pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa Mushalpur [‘the Trial Court’, for short]; and also, the First Information Report [FIR] dated 15.01.2021 registered as Mushalpur Police Station Case no. 05/2021 and the Charge-Sheet no. 22/2021 submitted in connection with Mushalpur Police Station Case no. 05/2021 on 30.04.2021. 3. The respondent no. 2 herein as the informant lodged a FIR before the In- Charge, Doomni Out Post, Police Station – Mushalpur, District - Baksa on 15.01.2021 naming two persons as accused with the present petitioner as accused no. 1. In the FIR, it was inter alia alleged that at around 07-30 p.m. on 15.01.2021, the two accused persons criminally trespassed into the house of the respondent no. 2-informant all of a sudden. At that time, the accused were armed with iron rods and knives. At the time of the incident, the informant’s husband was not present in the house. By trespassing into the house without permission, the accused persons had allegedly vandalized the household items. That apart, the accused persons pulled and dragged the informant and used obscene language. The informant further alleged that the accused persons also tried to drag her towards the forest located behind the house. The villagers arrived at the scene at that time and seeing the villagers, the accused persons fled from the scene. 4. On receipt of the FIR, Doomni Out Post General Diary Entry no. 44 dated 15.01.2021 was registered by the In-Charge, Doomni Out Post while forwarding the FIR to the Officer In-Charge, Mushalpur Police Station to register a case. Upon receipt of the FIR, the same was registered by the Officer In-Charge, Mushalpur Police Station as Mushalpur Police Station Case no. 05/2021 under Section 447 /427/354/294/506, INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC] on 16.01.2021 and an investigation ensued. 5. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. Upon receipt of the FIR, the same was registered by the Officer In-Charge, Mushalpur Police Station as Mushalpur Police Station Case no. 05/2021 under Section 447 /427/354/294/506, INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC] on 16.01.2021 and an investigation ensued. 5. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 22/2021 on 30.04.2021 finding sufficient incriminating materials only against the petitioner herein to face the trial for committing the offences under Sections 447 /427/323/354/294/34, IPC. The other accused person, Biswajit Kalita, named in the FIR, was found to be a juvenile [CCL] and he was not charge-sheeted. 6. On submission of the Charge-Sheet, the case has been registered as Police Report Case [PRC] no. 422/2021 before the Trial Court. The Trial Court taking cognizance, issued process to secure the appearance of the petitioner as the accused. On receipt of summons, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court on 26.07.2022 and made a prayer to release him on bail. The prayer was allowed on 26.07.2022. The parties were heard for framing of charge. Finding prima facie materials against the accused-petitioner, charges under Sections 447 /354/506/323/427, IPC were framed on 12.08.2022. When the charges was read over and explained to the accused-petitioner, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As a result, the case proceeded for trial and for recording of evidence on 01.10.2022. 7. During the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined seven nos. of prosecution witnesses till 19.06.2025. On 19.06.2025, the Trial Court had opined that all the prosecution witnesses had leveled allegattions against Biswajit Kalita. Opining so, the Trial Court took cognizance against Biswajit Kalita for the offences under Sections 447 /354/506/343/427/34, IPC and adding Biswajit Kalita as accused, issued summons against him. 8. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the period of investigation and trial, a process of mediation was going on between the parties and it was at the intervention of the elders from both the villages and well-wishers, the informant’s side and the petitioner’s side decided to bury the hatchet in the greater interest of maintaining peace and tranquility in their locality. As a result, all the disputes and discords have been amicably settled and to that effect, the respondent no. 2-informant has voluntarily come forward to execute and swear an affidavit on 09.06.2025. Mr. As a result, all the disputes and discords have been amicably settled and to that effect, the respondent no. 2-informant has voluntarily come forward to execute and swear an affidavit on 09.06.2025. Mr. Kalita has referred to the said affidavit, annexed as Annexure-3 to the instant petition, to support his submission. 9. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel who has appeared for the respondent no. 2-informant, has submitted that as the informant’s side and the petitioner’s side are from nearby localities, the village elders had intervened in order to reach an amicable settlement between the parties so that peace and tranquility in their respective locality can be maintained. He has submitted that the respondent no. 2-informant and the petitioner have both amicably settled the issues by arriving at a compromise. Mr. Phukan has submitted that the affidavit annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition has been sworn by the respondent no. 2-informant. 10. The offences under Sections 447 /427/323, IPC are compoundable as per the provision of Section 320 , CrPC. It is only offences under Section 354 and Section 294 of the IPC which do not fall in the category of compoundable offences. 11. It is settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short] is distinct and wider in amplitude than the power available to the criminal courts under Section 320 , CrPC to the compound offences. The compoundable offences are mentioned in Section 320 , CrPC. The inherent powers under Section 482 , CrPC have no statutory limitation and the inherent powers can be invoked, in an appropriate case, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process even if there is involvement of non-compoundable offence[s]. 12. The provisions contained in Section 528 , BNSS are pari materia to the provisions of Section 482 CrPC. In other words, the powers under Section 528 , BNSS are akin to the powers under Section 482 , CrPC. 13. With regard to the powers under Section 320 and Section 482 of the Code, in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab , reported in [2012] 10 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court has observed and held as under :- 61. 13. With regard to the powers under Section 320 and Section 482 of the Code, in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab , reported in [2012] 10 SCC 303 , the 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 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. 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. 14. After considering the decision in Gian Singh [supra], the 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 quash 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. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash 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. 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 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/delegate 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. 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 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. 15. 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. 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 and 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. 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. 16. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Naraya n reported in [2019] 5 SCC 688 , the 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 proceedings 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. 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 [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. 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. 17. Having regard to the materials brought on record including the affidavit sworn by the respondent no. 2-informant and hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, it is evident that the respondent no. 2-informant’s side and the petitioner’s side have already arrived at an amicable settlement with regard to the disputes and discords existing between the parties. The charges have already been framed against the petitioner in the proceedings of PRC No. 422/2021. Lately, cognizance has been against the other accused person, who incidentally was not earlier charge-sheeted. With summons having been issued recently against the newly added accused to secure his appearance in the proceedings of PRC no. 427/2021, an early conclusion of the proceedings is not in sight. 18. It is the testimony of the respondent no. 2-informant which is vital to bring home the charges under Section 354 , IPC and Section 294 , IPC. From the version in the FIR, it transpires at the time of the incident, she was the only person who was present inside the house. If such situation is taken into consideration, there is lesser possibility of the case resulting in conviction against the petitioner and the newly added accused for the offences under Section 354 , IPC and Section 294 , IPC. If such situation is taken into consideration, there is lesser possibility of the case resulting in conviction against the petitioner and the newly added accused for the offences under Section 354 , IPC and Section 294 , IPC. The sequence of events, on a plain reading of the testimony of the witnesses, is indicative of a situation that the incident stated to have occurred, was subsequent to another incident of slapping and assault on an uncle of the accused persons by the husband of the informant. 19. As the two sides have buried their hatchet, at the intervention of the village elders of the localities, by arriving at an amicable settlement, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceeding in connection with PRC No. 422/2021 is to be given a quietus. This Court cannot remain ignorant of the fact that the elders of the two localities had come forward to make the contesting parties meet and arrive at a mutual settlement so that a situation of peace is restored in the localities. The quashing of the criminal proceedings is going to advance peace and harmony amongst the parties who have decided to forget and bury the disputes and discord. The quashing of the criminal proceeding is going to have better social impact, rather than its denial. Therefore, in such exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 , BNSS , the criminal proceedings of PRC No. 422/2021, presently pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa at Mushalpur, is set aside and quashed. Consequently, the FIR lodged in connection with Mushalpur Police Station Case no. 05/2021 and the Charge-Sheet no. 22/2021 submitted in connection with Mushalpur Police Station Case no. 05/2021 are also quashed. 20. The criminal petition is disposed of in the afore-stated terms. No cost.