Quashed¶36

Kaustav Saikia and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC5 Mar 2026Crl.Pet./298/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court 2026 quashing of FIR and charge sheet under Section 528 BNSS 2023 on basis of compromise/deed of settlement between complainant, victim and accused; Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) guidelines applied; offences under Sections 341/323/294/506 IPC; Panbazar P.S. Case No.536/2021; C.S. No.132/2021; PRC Case No.419/2022; CJM Kamrup (M) Guwahati; abuse of process; no possibility of conviction.

What did the court decide?

FIR Panbazar P.S. Case No.536/2021 and charge sheet C.S. No.132/2021 (PRC Case No.419/2022) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati quashed and set aside only in respect of petitioner Kaustav Saikia; the Criminal Petition stands disposed of. ¶36

Kaustav Saikia and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR (Panbazar P.S. Case No.536/2021) and the charge sheet (C.S. No.132/2021, PRC Case No.419/2022) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, only in respect of petitioner Kaustav Saikia, in view of the compromise and written deed of settlement between the parties.

¶16

Court's answer

The ratio laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal is applicable to this case; there is no possibility of conviction of any person in this case, and allowing the proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

This is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶35

Key takeaways

The FIR being Panbazar P.S. Case No.536/2021 and the charge sheet being C.S. No.132/2021 (PRC Case No.419/2022) pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati are quashed and set aside, only in respect of the petitioner Kaustav Saikia.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.), order dated 06.03.2026 in Crl.Pet./298/2026: Joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 by Kaustav Saikia and Sukleshwar Mali seeking quashing of FIR being Panbazar P.S. Case No.536/2021 and charge sheet C.S. No.132/2021 (PRC Case No.419/2022) pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, only in respect of Kaustav Saikia. FIR was lodged by Sukleshwar Mali on 10.10.2021 alleging that on 09.10.2021 Kaustav Saikia and others assaulted his son Anupam Mali; charge sheet was filed under Sections 341/323/294 and 506 IPC; the parties thereafter compromised their dispute and executed a written deed of settlement. Kaustav Saikia, selected as Assistant Employment Officer, learnt of the case only during police verification. Applying the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 (paragraph 102), the Court held there was no possibility of conviction of any person and that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court; it quashed and set aside the FIR and charge sheet only in respect of Kaustav Saikia and disposed of the Criminal Petition.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010043022026

2026:GAU-AS:3310

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./298/2026

¶6

KAUSTAV SAIKIA AND ANR SON OF SHRI NIRANJAN SAIKIA RESIDENT OF D.K. ROAD, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, P.S.LAKHIMPUR, DIST. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶7

2: SUKLESHWAR MALI S/O LATE UPEN MALI RESIDENT OF CHITRACHAL PATH KHARGULI P.S. LATASIL PIN-781004 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, J SINGPHO,A KALITA,A SAIKIA

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶10

Page No.# 2/4

¶11

:: BEFORE ::

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

06.03.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

¶16

2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing the (I) FIR being Panbazar P.S. Case No.536/2021 and the charge sheet being C.S. No.132/2021 (PRC Case No.419/2022) pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, only in respect of the petitioner Kaustav Saikia.

¶17

3. The petitioner Sukleshwar Mali had lodged an FIR before police on 10.10.2021. Therein, he has alleged that on 09.10.2021, while his son Anupam Mali was returning home at about 5.30 A.M., the petitioner Kaustav Saikia and some other boys attacked him and caused injuries to him.

¶18

4. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against Kaustav Saikia and some other persons under Sections 341/323/294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, Sukleshwar Mali, his son Anupam Mali and Kaustav Saikia had compromised their dispute and entered into a written deed of settlement.

¶19

5. Mr. Biswas has submitted that very recently, Kaustav Saikia got selected for appointment as an Assistant Employment Officer. When police verification was done for the said purpose, the petitioner came to know about the existence of the said

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

case.

¶22

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

¶23

7. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under:

¶24

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶25

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶26

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶27

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶28

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶29

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶30

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶31

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

grudge.”

¶34

8. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down in Bajan Lal (supra), is applicable in this case. Now, there is no possibility of conviction of any person in this case. So, allowing such a proceeding to continue before the trial court, would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

¶35

9. This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶36

10. The (I) FIR being Panbazar P.S. Case No.536/2021 and the charge sheet being C.S. No.132/2021 (PRC Case No.419/2022) pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, only in respect of the petitioner Kaustav Saikia, is quashed and set aside.

¶37

The Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Kaustav Saikia and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaustav Saikia and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Principal Director, Directorate of School Education Vs Smti Kenlong Konyak

Shri C. Tentsho Vs State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Shri Khrielhoulie Miachieo and 4 Ors. Vs State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Jubel Ahmed Alias Zubel Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

Jabed Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Tahirul Islam Vs the State of Assam