JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Mr. G. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam; and Mr. A.J. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. The instant criminal petition under Section 528 , Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [ BNSS ], 2023 is preferred seeking setting aside and quashing of a First Information Report [FIR], registered as Baihata Chariali Police Station Case no. 83/2025 on 01.04.2025 and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 3. It was the respondent no. 2 herein as the informant who lodged the First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Baihata Charliali Police Station on 14.03.2025 naming the petitioner herein as accused no. 1 along with a Lat Mondal from the Office of the Circle Officer, North Guwahati Revenue Circle, Amingaon, Guwahati as accused no. 2. 4. In the FIR, the respondent no. 2-informant had inter-alia alleged that he had been residing in Guwahati in view of his service. He further stated that he had a plot of measuring 3 Kathas 9 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 143 and K.P. Patta no. 291, situate at South Lenga Village, Mouza – Bar Bongkhar, North Guwahati Revenue Circle, District – Kamrup [‘the subject-plot’]. The respondent no. 2-informant further alleged that without his knowledge, the accused no. 1 with the help of the accused no. 2 got her name mutated for the subject- plot in the revenue records and also took possession of the subject-plot. Suspecting that there were also involvements of other persons, the respondent no. 2-informant requested the police authorities to make necessary investigation. 5. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge entrusted a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Baihata Chariali Police Station to cause a preliminary enquiry. The Sub-Inspector of Police after causing a preliminary enquiry reported on 01.04.2025 that there was a prima facie case which would necessitate further investigation. Thereafter, the FIR has been registered as Baihata Chariali Police Station Case no. 83/2025 for the offences under Sections 3 18[4]/316[5]/336[3]/338/337/ 340[2]/3[5], Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [ BNS ], 2023. 6. It is stated that the investigation is being carried out at present. But, the respondent no. 2-informant has sworn an affidavit on 04.07.2025 stating that he had filed the FIR on 01.04.2025 at Baihata Chariali Police Station, registered as Baihata Chariali Police Station Case no. 6. It is stated that the investigation is being carried out at present. But, the respondent no. 2-informant has sworn an affidavit on 04.07.2025 stating that he had filed the FIR on 01.04.2025 at Baihata Chariali Police Station, registered as Baihata Chariali Police Station Case no. 83/2025, out of misconception on facts and misapprehension. In the affidavit, the respondent no. 2-informant has further asserted that he does not want to proceed further with the case and he is doing so at the cost of the necessary consequences. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2-informant has affirmed that the affidavit annexed to the present criminal petition, as Annexure-III, is an affidavit which has been sworn by the respondent no. 2-informant. He has further submitted that the respondent no. 2-informant is not interested to pursue the matter further. 8. On a look at the FIR [Annexure-I], it is seen that save and except the offence under Section 3 18[4], BNS , the other offences defined by Section 3 16[5]/336[3]/338/337/340[2], BNS are not offences which can be compounded under the provisions of Section 3 59 of the BNS S . 9. As the respondent no. 2 as the informant has affirmed and asserted that he is not interested to pursue the case further, the matter of investigation even if it resulted in submission of the charge-sheet, is not going to serve any fruitful purpose if the respondent no. 2-informant is not going to support the case of the prosecution. As a result, the possibility of the case resulting in conviction is remote. The informant himself has affirmed that the FIR he lodged on 01.04.2025 was due to misconception of fact and misplaced apprehension. It has been reiterated by the respondent no. 2-informant in the affidavit sworn on 04.07.2025. 10. The provisions of Section 359 and Section 528 of the BNSS are akin and pari materia to the provisions of Section 320 and Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ and/or ‘CrPC’, for short]. 11. The inherent powers of this Court available under Section 482 , CrPC have been discussed elaborately in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. 12. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab , reported in [2012] 10 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court has observed and held as under :- 61. 11. The inherent powers of this Court available under Section 482 , CrPC have been discussed elaborately in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 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 [supra] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. 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. 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. 15. The decision in Naushey Ali and others vs. State of U.P. and another , 2025 INSC 182 , is also in similar lines. 16. The inherent powers of this Court can be exercised in an appropriate case in order to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. As the offence alleged by the respondent no. 2-informant against the petitioner is in respect the subject-plot and in essence, the dispute is primarily of civil in nature. 16. The inherent powers of this Court can be exercised in an appropriate case in order to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. As the offence alleged by the respondent no. 2-informant against the petitioner is in respect the subject-plot and in essence, the dispute is primarily of civil in nature. In such fact situation obtaining, this Court is of the view that the case in hand is a fit and appropriate case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 528 , BNSS to set aside and quash the FIR registered as Baihata Chariali Police Station Case no. 83/2025 and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. It is accordingly ordered. 17. The criminal petition is allowed to the extent stated above.