Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/13 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 18 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010127602024
2025:GAU-AS:12889
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./758/2024
NABA DEKA
S/O SRI KESHAB DEKA, R/O SATGAON, DALBARI, P.S.-SATGAON, DIST-
KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER LITIGATION
L AND T FINANCE LTD.
P.S.-PARIJAN TECH PARK
15TH FLOOR
PLOT NO. 52
BLOCK DN
SECTOR-V
SALT LAKE CITY
KOLKATA
DIST- 24 PARGANAS NORTH
WEST BENGAL (INFORMANT). BRANCH OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR
KUSHAN PLAZA (MUKESH HYUNDAI BUILDING
G.S ROAD
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
ASSAM
3:KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK (LOAN DEPTT)
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL HEAD
BLOCK-B
22
CAMAC STREET
KANKARIA ESTATES
Page No.# 2/13
PARK STREET AREA
KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL-70001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B HALDAR, MS S. BASAK,MS. P GHOSH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS CURIAE (R-3),MS.
P. KALITA (R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
Date : 18.09.2025 Heard Mr. B. Haldar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/authorized officer/Manager Litigation, L&T Finance Ltd.; Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 3/Kotak Mahindra Bank; and Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner herein Naba Deka, invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973(as it existed then), is seeking quashing of the charge sheet No. 484 dated 17.09.2023 filed against him under Section 406/420 IPC after investigation of Dispur Police Station Case No. 1959/2018 (PRC No. 1330/2024).
3. Perused the FIR dated 26.02.2016 lodged in Satgaon P.S. on behalf of L & T Finance Ltd. The gist of the allegations narrated in the said FIR is that the petitioner as a borrower, approached the finance company for purchasing one JCB and upon agreement, the company sanctioned total loan for purchasing the same and in this regard, loan cum hypothecation Page No.# 3/13 agreement dated 21.03.2011 was executed and the loan amount of Rs. 21,18,600/- is to be repaid in 35 monthly installments and in the event of failure, the borrower and the guarantor were liable to pay the forwarding compensation @ 36 % p.a. It is further alleged that right from the beginning, the petitioner as borrower was irregular in payment of installments and continued to fail to do so, despite requests and reminders. It is also alleged that arbitration proceeding was initiated and he did not appear in the same also. It is further alleged that the asset (JCB) which was the subject matter, was also misappropriated by him. The company claimed a total pending amount of Rs. 21,50,056.31/- along with the interest 36 % p.a.
4. The company alleged in the FIR that the act of the petitioner also amount to criminal offence of cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation. On the basis of the FIR, Dispur P.S. Case No. 1959/2018 was registered under Section 406/420 IPC which after investigation resulted in a charge sheet under the said penal provisions as stated above.
5. The petitioner is now before this court seeking quashing of the said criminal proceeding, including the charge sheet. It is further contended that subsequently vide order 04.06.2024, the learned SDJM(S) No. 2 Kamrup(M) was also pleased to take cognizance in PRC Case 1330/24 based on the said charge sheet. The said proceeding is stated to be under an order of stay. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the meantime, the petitioner has paid the entire amount in installments and in this regard has annexed a document as Annexure-3. It appears that subsequently, the loan account in the form of a stressed asset was transferred to the Kotak Mahindra Bank.
Page No.# 4/13 The learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure -3 which is stated to be a No Dues Certificate dated 29.12.2023 issued by the said Bank to the petitioner, stating that letter may be treated as no due certificate and that, it confirms that they have received the full and final settlement amount, which is payable by him vide settlement agreement dated 29.03.2019.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that since the party has claimed to have arrived at a settlement, the court may pass necessary order as per law.
7. The learned counsel respondent No. 2 does not find dispute the contention of the petitioner's side and confirms from the side of the said finance company that the matter has been settled, as indicated by the petitioner's side.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 fairly submits that despite giving sufficient opportunity, the respondent/bank did not appear whereupon he has been appointed as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and he would not be able to confirm on the basis of any direct information from the bank, in regard to the settlement.
9. Going back to the initial facts, I find that the FIR was lodged on behalf of the L&T and the said respondent/informant through its learned counsel has confirmed that the settlement occurred between the parties.
10. It appears from the materials and the submissions that though initially the loan was advanced by the L&T Finance Company but subsequently, it was transferred to the Kotak Mahindra Bank(Loan Dept.). It Page No.# 5/13 is contended and submitted by the petitioner that the agreement submitted by them is bona fide and should be accepted as the respondent/bank has not come forward through its own counsel to controvert the same.
11. The law of quashing pursuant to settlement, has been crystallized through a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. One of the earlier decisions was rendered in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. The law was further developed in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466. Some more parameters, especially with regard to serious matters were laid in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan , reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. The relevant paragraphs may be reproduced herein under -
In the case of State of M.P. (supra) -
"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 Page No.# 6/13 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 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/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 of Page No.# 7/13 the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] 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."
In the case of Gian Singh (supra) -
"57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
Page No.# 8/13
58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the Page No.# 9/13 criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."
In the case of Narinder Singh (supra) -
"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. 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.
Page No.# 10/13 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. 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 Page No.# 11/13 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. 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. 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 Page No.# 12/13 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."
12. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, apart from the dispute being prima facie a civil one which was also subjected to unsuccessful effort at arbitral resolution, that also has to be noted that pursuant to the agreement and the contention regarding no objection on behalf of the informant side, continuance of the criminal proceeding would be a wastage of time and abuse of the process of the court and its valuable time, especially in a situation of over loaded dockets of criminal courts, in our system.
13. Therefore, I find this to be a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 as it existed then [now, Section 528 BNSS]. Accordingly, charge sheet vide No. 484/2023 dated 17.09.2023 arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No. 1959/2018(corresponding to PRC Case No. 1330/24 is hereby quashed in the interest of justice.
14. The learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to his usual fees.
15. The instant criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of Page No.# 13/13 on the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant