Allowed

Abhilash Dutta and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026Crl.Pet./1194/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Articles 260 and 233 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Prenate Act) vs. State of Assam. The Gauhati High Court considered a plea quashing the FIR and charge sheet under Section 528 of the BNSS. The court noted the parties reached a settlement via affidavits regarding a road rage incident. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that private offences can be quashed upon settlement. The petition was allowed and proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR being Latashil P.S. Case No. 45/2026, registered under S. 118(1)/126(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023; Charge-sheet No. 48/2026; and all consequential criminal proceedings were quashed.

Abhilash Dutta and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010183292026

2026:GAU-AS:13778

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./1194/2026

¶6

ABHILASH DUTTA AND ANR

¶7

S/O LATE PRANTIK DUTTA, R/O PURBANCHAL NAGAR, SILPUKHURI, P.O. SILPUKHURI, P.S. CHANDMARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM-781003

¶8

2: MARRIN TALUKDAR S/O SOMESWAR TALUKDAR R/O H/NO. 52 KARNACHAL HILL SIDE SILPUKHURI SHIVA MANDIR P.O. SILPUKHURI P.S. CHANDMARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM-781003 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:ARGHYDEEP ROY S/O DILIP KUMAR ROY PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HAWAITHANG BAZAR SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM-788120 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KAHILIPARA CHANDRA TERON PATH P.S. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781019 KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S E M AHMADIA, MISS C S MARAK,A AHMED,LEVIS HAOLAI

¶10

Page No.# 2/5

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A H AHMED(R2),MR R ISLAM(R2)

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 16.09.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. S. A. M. Ahmadia, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. R. Islam, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶16

By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR being Latashil P.S. Case No. 45/2026, registered under Sections 118(1)/126(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the Charge-sheet laid in pursuant to the said case as well as the consequential criminal proceeding arising therefrom. The main ground for quashing of the said FIR, the Charge-sheet and the consequential proceeding was on the settlement reached between the petitioners as well as respondent no.2, i.e. the informant. The case of the petitioners is that, on 03.07.2026, an FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2, namely, Arghyadeep Roy, stating, inter alia, that while he was going in his vehicle, another vehicle came from the left side and stopped his vehicle by placing the said vehicle in front of his vehicle. The occupants of the said vehicle thereafter forcibly made him get down from his vehicle and, when he did so, the occupants, namely, the petitioners, allegedly assaulted the informant brutally. The informant further stated that he was beaten for no reason as there was no hitting by his car on the vehicle of the petitioners. The informant also stated that blood started oozing out from his injuries and that petitioners were still

¶17

Page No.# 3/5

¶18

beating him. He thereafter, stated the he left the particular place by riding his vehicle and that, after going to certain distance, he saw the occupants, i.e. the petitioners stopping near another vehicle and then they tried to stop his vehicle but then he somehow escaped and went to the hospital and got treatment to his injuries. The learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners had sworn in an affidavit on 20^th of August, 2026, stating inter alia that an incident had taken place between the petitioners and the informant and that it has been settled amicably between the parties and that there are no serious grievances against each other. It is also stated therein that the petitioners have understood their mistake and had undertaken to maintain peace and harmony and they shall not cause any harm to the informant.

¶19

The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that respondent No. 2 has also sworn an affidavit on the same date on which the petitioners had sworn their affidavits, stating, inter alia, that the entire incident had taken place in the heat of the moment and that he had lodged the First Information Report against the petitioners due to a misunderstanding. It is further stated in the affidavit that respondent No. 2 has amicably settled the matter with the petitioners. It is also stipulated in the said affidavit that he does not desire to proceed with the case and has no objection if the entire proceedings is quashed.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has conceded to the stand taken by the respondent no. 2, in his affidavit.

¶21

I have heard the counsels and have gone carefully the records it is a settled position of law that cases of private nature can be settled amongst the parties on the settlement reached amongst them. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, one of them being “ Parbatbhai Aahir @

¶22

Page No.# 4/5

¶23

Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in (2017) 9 SCC 614, that the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction while dealing with a plea that dispute has been settled, the said Court having due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence can quashed the same on the settlement being reached between the parties. It has been held that offences which are predominantly private in nature and do not have a serious impact upon society may be settled between the parties. It was also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in cases where there are no chances of the offender being punished or that the same would result in prejudice or sufferings of the parties concerned, the same can be quashed by the High Court by exercising its inherent power.

¶24

It is seen in the instant case, that there was a tussle between the petitioners and the informant, who both were riding their respective vehicles and had fought with each other on a trivial cause. As such, it is seen that they have entered into a settlement between them by swearing in affidavits by both the parties, wherein, they have stated that the incident happened at the spur of the moment and the FIR was lodged at that juncture and they have decided to settle their disputes and stay amicably amongst them.

¶25

In view of the same, this Court finds it fit to quash the FIR as well as the subsequent action. Accordingly, the FIR being Latashil P.S. Case No. 45/2026, registered under Sections 118(1)/126(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 as well as the Charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 48/2026 and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom stands quashed.

¶26

Page No.# 5/5

¶27

8. The Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Abhilash Dutta and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhilash Dutta and Anr. v. the 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