JUDGMENT

Ajit Borthakur, J. - Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/victim-complainant.

2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the proceeding in C.R. Case No. 4365 C /2019, under Sections 120B/406/420/405/417/423/441/464 of the IPC, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (Arising out of Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 233/2012, where Final Report was submitted.)

3. The petitioner's contentions, in a nutshell, is that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, inter-alia, alleging that the respondent No. 2 is the owner of a plot of land situated a Machkhowa. The petitioner fraudulently took her signatures on some blank papers, on 17.12.2009 and later on, on different occasions, took the land documents from her and then, without her knowledge, mortgaged the land to the bank, while availing loan. The said complaint was forwarded to Bharalumukh P.S. for investigation and accordingly, a case was registered. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted Bharalumukh P.S. Final Report No. 38/2013, dated 31.03.2013. After receipt of the Final Report, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the respondent No. 2/informant and on consideration of the objection petition filed by the respondent No. 2, rejected the Final Report and registered it as C.R. Case No. 4365 C /2019, which is presently pending for necessary order/initial deposition fixing 04.02.2020. Meanwhile, the accused/petitioner and the respondent No. 2/informant have amicably settled the entire matter outside the Court by executing a Memorandum of Understanding on 17.12.2019 and before that the respondent No. 2 had also sold out the said plot of land to the petitioner by executing a registered Deed of Sale on 26.10.2010. The petitioner has further contended that as per Section 320 Cr.P.C., offences under Sections 120B/406/420/405/417/423/441 of the IPC are otherwise compoundable, but offence under Section 465 of the IPC is a non-compoundable offence and as such, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing of the case to secure the ends of justice.

4. Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner, moving the instant petition, has referred to the above facts stated in the petition.

5. Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant, submit No Objection against quashing of the said case in the above backdrop of facts.

6. I have considered the facts of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

7. It may pertinently be mentioned that Section 482 Cr.P.C. envisages the circumstances, under which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the Courts, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

8. A perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 and the contentions made in the petition, and further, the subsequent development of amicable settlement of the whole dispute, it is apparently revealed that the respondent No. 2/the complainant, who is a lady aged about 90 years, has come to certain terms with the petitioner to withdraw the case vide Annexure- V, the Memorandum of Understanding and sold out the plot of land by a registered Sale Deed to the petitioner vide Annexure-VI, attributing the entire dispute to misunderstanding and miscommunication between them. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the complaint case, which is prese