Allowed

Amit Kumar Rai and Anr. v. State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026Crl.Pet./1190/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court quashed an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against two petitioners accused of professional misconduct and financial conspiracy in their employment contract. Relying on a previous settlement between the petitioners and the complainant company, where the accused admitted guilt and repaid the disputed amount, the court held that the private nature of the offence and the restoration of trust allowed for quashing under Section 528 BNSS for the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The FIR registered as Dispur P.S. Case No. 345/2026 under sections 316(3), 318(4), 336(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 stands quashed. The petition is disposed of.

Amit Kumar Rai and Anr. Vs State of Assam and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010184732026

2026:GAU-AS:13771

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./1190/2026

¶6

AMIT KUMAR RAI AND ANR

¶7

S/O- ASHOK KUMAR RAI, TEMPORARY, TEMPORARY R/O -NARIKAL BARI, SUB- BY LANE- 4, H/NO-1,P.O /P.S-GEETNAGAR, DIST -KAMRUP M, ASSAM. PERMANENT RESIDENECE OF DHIRAJ NAGAR, P.OARAMANNAGAR, P.SFARIDABAD, DISTFARIDABAD. STATE- HARYANA.

¶8

2: KANCHAN KUMARI W/O- AMIT KUMAR RAI TEMPORARY R/O -NARIKAL BARI SUB- BY LANE- 4 H/NO-1 P.O /P.S-GEETNAGAR DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM. PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF DHIRAJ NAGAR P.O- ARAMANNAGAR P.SFARIDABAD DIST- FARIDABAD STATEHARYANA

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶11

2:OMINNOVATIVE LLP REPRESENTED BY SANJIB DEB CHOUDHURY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF OMINNOVATIVE LLP AND FTTC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED. HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT FLAT NO A3C THEIR FLOOR BLOCK CHITRABAN ENCLAVE ZOO ROAD GUWAHATI 781005 DIST -KAMRUP (M)

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

ASSA

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI, MR. SHYAM SHARMA,MR. R SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. C MAHANTA(R2),MR. N BARMAN(R2)

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 16.09.2026

¶19

Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Barman, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1.

¶20

By this application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside and quashing of the FIR registered as Dispur P.S. Case No. 345/2026 under Sections 316(3), 318(4), 336(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶21

The only ground mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner on which the quashing is sought for is the settlement reached between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, an FIR was lodged by the authorized signatory of OMinnovative of LLP, on 5^th of May, 2026 stating inter alia that, petitioner No.1, who is the employee of the said company was acting with deliberate criminal intent and in calculated breach of trust reposed on him, hatched a well organized and premeditated criminal conspiracy with various electric shops and suppliers in Guwahati and for the purpose of enriching himself and his associates, at the company's expense. It is

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

further stated that, the petitioner no.1 had abused his position of trust and induced the co-conspirator and co-accused businesses and their shops to raise deliberately inflated false and fabricated bills against the companies for electrical materials and services. It is further alleged that in exchange for facilitating the payment of those inflated bills from the company's funds, the petitioner no.1 had received illegal kickbacks and commissions from the co-accused business persons. Further allegation is made against petitioner no. 2, who is wife of petitioner no.1, to the effect that she is an active and known participant in the said criminal conspiracy. It was further alleged that the illegal commissions and kickbacks were transferred to the account of petitioner no. 2, in order to shield the proceeds of crime.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of the said company and pursuant to the said FIR, he was arrested and was enlarged on bail by order dated 23.06.2026, by this court. He further submits that a settlement was reached between petitioner no. 2 and the authorized signatory of the said company on 16^th of July, 2026, at Guwahati. In the said settlement, he submits, it was agreed that the petitioners in admission of their guilt had agreed to return the entire amount of Rs. 56,00,000/- (Fifty Six Lakhs) and that the petitioners had begged apology for the same from the company. It is also agreed that the said amount would be refunded to the company on or before 15.11.2026 without fail. It is also agreed that, the money will be refunded even by taking recourse to by selling gold ornaments or a plot of land or from the provident fund or by availing loan from friends and family members. However, it is also agreed upon that the date on the cheque has not been inserted in view of the fact that the Investigating Officer had freezed the

¶25

Page No.# 4/5

¶26

account of the petitioner being Savings Bank Account No. 3750088136 of Kotak Mahindra Bank in connection with the said offence and once the account is defreezed, the date will be inserted in the said cheque.

¶27

The company is been represented by Mr. N. Barman, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and he concedes to the settlement reached between the parties and he further submits that the petitioner no. 1, has been taken back by the company in his service as an electrical engineer and that the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶28

It is a settled position of law, that cases which are predominantly private in nature with no effect on the public at large or which is connected with some civil offence, the same can be settled amongst the parties. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in so many cases one of them being “ Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in (2017) 9 SCC 614, wherein, the Apex court had held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash the case on being settled by the parties concerned and on, a settlement being sworn in by the said parties. It has been specifically held that, in exercise of power under section 482 of the CrPC, which is now 528 of BNSS 2023, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is held that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity and offences such as murder, rape, decoity cannot appropriately be quashed though a settlement is reached but offences which are private in nature, which does not have a serious impact upon the society can be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction. It has also been held that, if it is seen that, there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial of the offence and that there is no likelihood that the offender would be punished,

¶29

Page No.# 5/5

¶30

the court should not be saddled with the trial of the offence which will result in wastage of valuable judicial time.

¶31

In the instant case, it is seen that, the petitioner and the company has entered into settlement by way of a compromise deed dated 16^th of July 2026 and wherein, it was decided that petitioner would refund the entire amount of Rs.56,00, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs) to the company. It is also stated at the bar by both the counsels appearing for the petitioners and respondent no.2, that out of the said 56 lakhs only 15 lakhs is required to be paid and it is also seen that the petitioner no. 1 has been taken back into his service by the company and as such, this court deems it fit to quash the FIR being registered as Dispur Police Station. No. 345/2026 before the Dispur Police Station, registered under sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3) and 61(2), for the ends of justice.

¶32

The FIR as such stands quashed.

¶33

The petition is disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Amit Kumar Rai and Anr. v. State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Rai and Anr. v. State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases