Smti Rupjyoti Sarmah and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smti Rupjyoti Sarmah and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Setting aside and quashing of the six enumerated FIR/PRC proceedings (paras 12(i)-(vi)); disposal of all six criminal petitions; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the six pending FIRs, charge-sheets and criminal proceedings arising out of inter se family disputes between related parties, which the petitioners have amicably settled and no longer wish to pursue, should be quashed and set aside in exercise of this Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

Court's answer

Since all the criminal cases are based on family disputes and the parties have settled their dispute amicably, this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023; the possibility of conviction appears remote and bleak, and further proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

Ratio / Principle

In light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naushey Ali & Ors (supra), the proceedings of PRC Case No. 165/2022 arising out of All Women P.S. Case No. 12/18 (Crl.Pet./979/2026), the FIR registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 57/2018 (Crl.Pet./981/2026), the FIR registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 1186/2017 (Crl.Pet./982/2026), PRC Case No. 1722/2021 arising out of Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 159/2018 (Crl.Pet./984/2026), the FIR registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 33/18 (Crl.Pet./985/2026), and PRC Case No. 327/20 arising out of All Women P.S. Case No. 11/18 (Crl.Pet./986/2026) are set aside and quashed.

Key takeaways

In terms of the foregoing observations, all these petitions are disposed of.ratio¶¶101
No order as to costs.ratio¶¶102

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the Gauhati High Court (Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund), 13.07.2026, disposing of six criminal petitions filed jointly by members of two inter-related families - Crl.Pet./979/2026, 981/2026, 982/2026, 984/2026, 985/2026 and 986/2026 - praying for quashing of six cross-filed FIRs/PRC cases born of mutual family disputes: (i) PRC Case No. 165/2022 arising out of All Women P.S. Case No. 12/18 (Sections 498(A)/307/506 IPC; complainant Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma; CJM Kamrup(M)); (ii) Basistha P.S. Case No. 57/2018 (Sections 379/506 IPC; complainant Smt. Rupjyoti Sarma); (iii) Basistha P.S. Case No. 1186/2017 (Sections 294/379/323/506 IPC; same complainant); (iv) PRC Case No. 1722/2021 arising out of Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 159/2018 (Sections 120(B)/354/341/506/34 IPC; complainant Smt. Sewali Basumatary; JMFC Kamrup(M)); (v) Basistha P.S. Case No. 33/18 (Sections 120(B)/294/392 IPC read with Section 5 of the Assam land Grabbing (P) Act, 2010; complainant Shri Kalyan Kumar Sarma); and (vi) PRC Case No. 327/20 arising out of All Women P.S. Case No. 11/18 (Sections 448/354/352/506/34 IPC; complainant Smt. Rupjyoti Sarma; Special JMFC Kamrup(M)). With all petitioners except Smt. Sewali Basumatary related to one another, the disputes amicably settled, and the parties unwilling to proceed, and following Naushey Ali & Ors Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2025) 4 SCC 78 (which restates State of MP v. Laxmi Naravan and Narinder Singh v State of Punjab), the Court invoked the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, held the possibility of conviction remote and bleak and further proceedings an abuse of the process of the Court, set aside and quashed all six proceedings, and disposed of the petitions with no order as to costs.

Page No.# 1/13

GAHC010136032026

2026:GAU-AS:9501

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

Case No. : Crl.Pet./979/2026

KALYAN KUMAR SARMA AND 3 ORS

S/O LATE MRIGEN SARMA, R/O BELTOLA TINIALI, KRISHNA ARJUN PATH, HOUSE NO. 18, P.S. BELTOLA, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM

2: SMTI RUPJYOTI SARMAH W/O- LATE MRIGEN SARMA R/O- HOUSE NO. 18 KRISHNA ARJUN PATH BELTOLA TINIALI BHETAPARA ROAD GUWAHATI BASISTHA POLICE STATION KAMRUP METRO P..S SONAPUR ASSAM

3: SMTI SEWALI BASUMATARY D/O- BIJAY BASUMATARY RESIDENT OF NABUDOI PATH HOUSE NO. 13 GHURAMARA GUWAHATI P.S. HATIGAON DIST. KAMRUP METRO.

4: SMTI. POONAM MAHANTA BRAHMA W/O- KALYAN KUMAR SARMA R/O- BELTOLA TINIALI BHETAPARA ROAD BYELANE NO. 5 KRISHNA ARJUN PATH HOUSE NO. 18 GUWAHATI P.S. BASISTHA

Page No.# 2/13

DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BHUYAN, MR. M K DAS,MS Z ANJUM,MS. B CHETRY,MR. A DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

Linked Case : Crl.Pet./982/2026

SMTI RUPJYOTI SARMAH AND ANR W/O LATE MRIGEN SARMA R/O BELTOLA TINIALI KRISHNA ARJUN PATH HOUSE NO. 18 P.S. BELTOLA DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM

2: SMTI POONAM MAHANTA BRAHMA W/O- KALYAN KUMAR SARMA R/O- BELTOLA TINIALI BHETAPARA ROAD BYE LANE NO. 5 KRISHNA ARJUN PATH H/NO. 18 GUWAHATI P.S. BASISTHA DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM

Page No.# 3/13

-----------Advocate for : MR. A K BHUYAN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

Linked Case : Crl.Pet./985/2026

KALYAN KUMAR SARMA AND 3 ORS S/O- LATE MRIGEN SARMA R/O- BELTOLA TINIALI KRISHNA ARJUN PATH

HOUSE NO. 18 P.S. BELTOLA DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

2: SUNNY MAHANTA BRAHMA S/O- HEMA MAHANTA R/O- SONAPUR JALUKBARI P.S. SONAPUR DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

3: MEENAKSHI BRAHMA W/O- DIPANKAR MAHANTA R/O- WIRELESS OPP-BSNL OFFICE RD GUWAHATI

4: HEMA MAHANTA W/O- SURENDRA NATH MAHANTA P.O./P.S. SONAPUR VILL.- PUNIGAON CHARIALI ITACHALI DIST.- NAGAON VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LD. PP ASSAM

-----------Advocate for : MR. A K BHUYAN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

Page No.# 4/13

Linked Case : Crl.Pet./981/2026

SMTI RUPJYOTI SARMA AND 3 ORS W/O LATE MRIGEN SARMA R/O BELTOLA TINIALI KRISHNA ARJUN PATH HOUSE NO. 18 P.S. BELTOLA DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM

2: SMTI POONAM MAHANTA BRAHMA W/O- KALYAN KUMAR SARMA R/O- BELTOLA TINIALI BHETAPARA ROAD BYE LANE NO. 5 KRISHNA ARJUN PATH H/NO. 18 GUWAHATI P.S. BASISTHA DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3: SUNNY MAHANTA BRAHMA S/O- HEMA MAHANTA R/O- SONAPUR JALUKBARI P.S. SONAPUR DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 4: MEENAKSHI MAHANTA BRAHMA W/O- DIPANKAR MAHANTA R/O- WIRELESS OPP- BSNL OFFICE ROAD GUWAHATI. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM

-----------Advocate for : MR. A K BHUYAN

Page No.# 5/13

Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

Linked Case : Crl.Pet./986/2026

SMTI RUPJYOTI SARMAH AND 4 ORS W/O LATE MRIGEN SARMA R/O HOUSE NO 18 KRISHNA ARJUN PATH BELTOLA TINIALI BHETAPARA ROAD GUWAHATI BASISTHA POLICE STATION KAMRUP (M) P.S. SONAPUR DIIST.- KAMRUP (M) 2: SMTI. POONAM MAHANTA BRAHMA W/O- KALYAN KUMAR SARMA R/O- BELTOLA TINIALI BHETAPARA ROAD BYELANE NO.5 KRISHNA ARJUN PATH HOUSE NO. 18 GUWAHATI P.S. BASISTHA DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3: SUNNY MAHANTA BRAHMA S/O- HEMA MAHANTA R/O- SONAPUR JALUKBARI P.S. SONAPUR DIST.- KAMRUP (M) 4: MEENAKSHI BRAHMA W/O- DIPANKAR MAHANTA R/O- WIRELESS OPP-BSNL OFFICE RD GUWAHATI 5: HEMA MAHANTA W/O- SURENDRA NATH MAHANTA P/O/P.S. SONAPUR

Page No.# 6/13

VILL- PUNIGAON CHARIALI ITACHALI DIST.- NAGAON VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LD PP ASSAM

-----------Advocate for : MR. A K BHUYAN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

Linked Case : Crl.Pet./984/2026

SMTI POONAM MAHANTA BRAHMA AND 2 ORS W/O KALYAN KUMAR SARMA R/O BELTOLA TINIALI BHETAPARA ROAD BYELANE NO 5 KRISHNA ARJUN PATH HOUSE NO. 18 GUWAHATI P.S. BASISTHA DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 2: SUNNY MAHANTA BRAHMA S/O- HEMA MAHANTA R/O- SONAPUR JALUKBARI P.S. SONAPUR DIST.- KAMRUP (M) 3: SMTI. SEWALI BASUMATARY D/O- BIJAY BASUMATARY RESIDENT OF NABUDOI PATH HOUSE NO. 13 GHURAMARA GUWAHATI P.S. HATIGAON KAMRUP (M) VERSUS

Page No.# 7/13

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LD PP ASSAM

-----------Advocate for : MR. A K BHUYAN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

ORDER

13.07.2026

Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. A. K. Bhuyan assisted by learned counsel Mr. N. R. Sharma for the petitioners namely, (i) Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma, (ii) Shri. Sunny Mahanta Brahma, (iii) Smt. Meenakshi Brahma, and (iv) Smt. Hema Mahanta and learned counsel Mr. N. K. Das is present for the petitioners namely, (i) Shri. Kalyan Kumar Sarma, (ii) Smt. Rupjyoti Sarmah, and (iii) Smt. Sewali Basumatary.

The petitioners have jointly filed this applications registered as Crl.Pet./979/2026, Crl.Pet./981/2026, Crl.Pet./982/2026, Crl.Pet./984/2026, Crl.Pet./985/2026, and Crl.Pet./986/2026.

Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. D. P. Goswami for the respondent State.

A slew of cases have been filed and there are several litigations pending between both the parties registered as PRC Case No. 165/2022 under Sections

Page No.# 8/13

498(A)/307/506 of the IPC arising out of FIR registered as All Women P.S. Case No. 12/18 lodged by Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma.

Another FIR registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 57/2018 under Sections 379/506 of the IPC was lodged by Smt. Rupjyoti Sarma and this FIR was lodged against the petitioners Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma, Shri. Sunny Mahanta Brahma and Smt. Meenakshi Brahma.

Another FIR registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 1186/2017 under Sections 294/379/323/506 of the IPC was lodged by Smt. Rupjyoti Sarma against Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma.

Another FIR registered as Hatigaon P.S. Case no. 159/2018 under Sections 120(B)/354/341/506/34 of the IPC was lodged by Smt. Sewali Basumatary against the petitioners Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma and Shri. Sunny Mahanta Brahma and this FIR was registered as PRC Case No. 1722/2021.

FIR being Basistha P.S. Case No. 33/18 was registered under Sections 120(B)/294/392 of the IPC read with Section 5 of the Assam land Grabbing (P) Act, 2010, was lodged by Shri Kalyan Kumar Sarma against the petitioners Shri. Sunny Mahanta Brahma, Smt. Meenaskhi Brahma and Smt. Hema Mahanta.

The FIR registered as All Women P.S. Case No. 11/18 under Sections 448/354/352/506/34 of the IPC was lodged by Smt. Rupjyoti Sarma agasint the petitioners Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma, Shri. Sunny Mahanta Brahma, Smt. Meenaskhi Brahma and Smt. Hema Mahanta, and this FIR was registered as PRC Case No. 327/2020.

Page No.# 9/13

As the petitioners are family members and as the petitioners have amicably settled their dispute, the petitioners have jointly filed several petitions with prayer to quash and set aside the FIR, Charge-sheet and the proceedings pending against them.

The petitioner Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma is the wife of Shri. Kalyan Kumar Sarma and Smt. Hema Mahanta is the mother of petitioner Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma. Smt. Meenakshi Brahma is the sister of Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma. Shri. Sunny Mahanta Brahma is the son of Hema Mahanta. In this way all the petitioners except Smt. Sewali Basumatary are related.

The criminal petitions are taken up together and decided by this Court by a common order as the petitioners are related. The basis of the cases leading to the above mentioned criminal cases is on the backdrop of family disputes.

(i) Criminal petition No. 979/2026 has been filed jointly by the above named petitioners with prayer to quash the proceedings of PR Case No. 165/2022 arising out of All women P.S. Case No. 12/18; and pending in the court of the CJM, Kamrup(M).

(ii) Criminal petition No. 981/2026 has been filed jointly by the above named petitioners with prayer to quash the FIR registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 57/2018;

(iii) Criminal petition No. 982/2026 has been filed jointly by the above named petitioners with prayer to quash

Page No.# 10/13

the FIR registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 1186/2017;

(iv) Criminal petition No. 984/2026 has been filed jointly by the above named petitioners with prayer to quash the proceedings of PRC Case No. 1722/2021 arising out of Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 159/2018 and pending in the court of the JMFC, Kamrup(M).

(v) Criminal petition No. 985/2026 has been filed jointly by the above named petitioners with prayer to quash the FIR registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 33/18; and

(vi) Criminal petition No. 986/2026 has been filed jointly by the above named petitioners with prayer to quash the proceedings of PRC Case No. 327/20 arising out of All Women P.S. Case No. 11/18, and pending in the court of the Special JMFC, Kamrup(M).

The parties were already embroiled in a family dispute and several cases have been filed against each other. The parties have decided to settle their dispute. They are not willing to proceed with the criminal cases brought up against each other.

I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on a decision of the Hon’ble

Page No.# 11/13

Supreme Court in Naushey Ali & Ors Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 , wherein it has been held that:-

“21. In State of MP. v. Laxmi Naravan after discussing the ratio in Narinder Singh v State of Punjab and other judgments this Court held (Laxmi Narayan case, SCC pp. 704-705, para 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 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;

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 107 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 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/delicate 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7

Page No.# 12/13

of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh 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.”

Reverting back to this case, it is held that as all the above criminal cases are based on family disputes and as the parties have settled their dispute amicably, it appears that this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 as the matters have been amicably settled. Possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. Further proceedings will indeed be an abuse of the process of the Court.

I have also considered the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naushey Ali & Ors (Supra) , the proceedings of:-

PRC Case No. 165/2022 arising out of All women P.S. Case No. 12/18 in Crl.Pet./979/2026;

FIR registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 57/2018 in Crl.Pet./981/2026;

FIR registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 1186/2017 in Crl.Pet./982/2026;

PRC Case No. 1722/2021 arising out of Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 159/2018 in Crl.Pet./984/2026;

FIR registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 33/18 in Crl.Pet./985/2026; and

PRC Case No. 327/20 arising out of All Women P.S. Case No. 11/18 in

Page No.# 13/13

Crl.Pet./986/2026,

are thereby set aside and quashed.

In terms of the above observation, all these petitions are disposed of.

No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Six pending FIRs / charge-sheets / criminal proceedings (PRC cases), all cross-filed out of family disputes between the same related persons, which the joint petitions prayed to have quashed and set aside.¶¶63
Investigating police stations and trial courts in Kamrup(M): CJM, JMFC and Special JMFC
Prior proceeding
All Women P.S. Case No. 12/18, lodged by Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma, under Sections 498(A)/307/506 IPC, registered as PRC Case No. 165/2022 and pending before the CJM, Kamrup(M); sought to be quashed in Crl.Pet./979/2026.¶¶56
Prior proceeding
Basistha P.S. Case No. 57/2018 under Sections 379/506 IPC, lodged by Smt. Rupjyoti Sarma against Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma, Shri. Sunny Mahanta Brahma and Smt. Meenakshi Brahma; sought to be quashed in Crl.Pet./981/2026.¶¶57
Prior proceeding
Basistha P.S. Case No. 1186/2017 under Sections 294/379/323/506 IPC, lodged by Smt. Rupjyoti Sarma against Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma; sought to be quashed in Crl.Pet./982/2026.¶¶58
Prior proceeding
Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 159/2018 under Sections 120(B)/354/341/506/34 IPC, lodged by Smt. Sewali Basumatary against Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma and Shri. Sunny Mahanta Brahma; registered as PRC Case No. 1722/2021 and pending before the JMFC, Kamrup(M); sought to be quashed in Crl.Pet./984/2026.¶¶59
Prior proceeding
Basistha P.S. Case No. 33/18, registered under Sections 120(B)/294/392 IPC read with Section 5 of the Assam land Grabbing (P) Act, 2010, lodged by Shri Kalyan Kumar Sarma against Shri. Sunny Mahanta Brahma, Smt. Meenaskhi Brahma and Smt. Hema Mahanta; sought to be quashed in Crl.Pet./985/2026.¶¶60
Prior proceeding
All Women P.S. Case No. 11/18 under Sections 448/354/352/506/34 IPC, lodged by Smt. Rupjyoti Sarma against Smt. Poonam Mahanta Brahma, Shri. Sunny Mahanta Brahma, Smt. Meenaskhi Brahma and Smt. Hema Mahanta; registered as PRC Case No. 327/2020 and pending before the Special JMFC, Kamrup(M); sought to be quashed in Crl.Pet./986/2026.¶¶61
Prior proceeding
Backdrop of mutual family litigation: the parties were embroiled in disputes against each other, then decided to settle amicably and declared unwillingness to proceed with the criminal cases against each other.¶¶74