The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences, the nature of offences falling under Section 307 IPC, and the considerations for allowing settlements between parties in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. - Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N. Kalita, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State and also Mr. JUNM Laskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. Present petition has been preferred, under Section 482 Code of the Criminal Procedure, by the victim as well as accused persons for quashing the FIR pertaining to Lala PS Case No. 469/2015 (G.R. No. 1889/2018) registered under Sections 420/407/34 IPC lodged by the sister of the victim, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi.

3. So far as the case is concerned, the informant/respondent No.2 lodged an FIR on 21.09.2015 before the Officer-in-Charge, Lala police station to the effect that the accused persons, namely, 1) Abul Hussain Laskar , 2) Naharun Nessa Laskar/petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted the sister of the informant, who is the sister-in-law of the above two accused persons, in their house, in absence of her husband. It was alleged that the sister of the informant was kicked by holding her hair and they also tried to kill her by strangulating with her ''duppatta'' but she somehow rescued herself and fled away. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Lala PS Case No. 469/2015 was registered against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and finally submitted charge-sheet before the court, which is now pending for trial.

4. The aforesaid two accused persons, named in the FIR, as well as the victim come forward with the present petition to submit that in fact there was no such serious dispute between the parties but due to misunderstanding, the brother of the victim, has filed the present FIR. It is stated that immediately after the occurrence, the matter was amicably settled on 22.10.2015 and matter was also apprised to the Officer-in-Charge of Lala Police station for disposal of the case, on compromise, but yet charge-sheet was laid by the I.O. of the case without appreciating the matter of settlement between the parties.

5. Now, it has been contended by the present three petitioners that I.O. of the case never approached the petitioners for their arrest or interrogation and some sections has been added afterwards despite the compromise between the parties and they are not even interested to proceed with the case any more. It is stated that the victim and the accusedpetitioners being in-laws has cordially continued their family life even after the incident. The victim, in this petition, has categorically stated that she did not sustain any such type of serious injury, on her person, as alleged in the FIR. Thus, all of them have sought for quashing of the FIR on the ground that continuance of further criminal proceeding will hamper their family relationship.

6. Today, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/informant has also entered appearance and submitted that FIR was filed by her brother due to misunderstanding and informant is no more interested to proceed with the case as the matter between the family members have already settled amicably. It is also submitted that victim sustained no such type of injury, on her person.

7. I have gone through the documents annexed including the copy of charge-sheet.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision in the case of Gyan Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 to submit that such a voluntary settlement between the parties can be allowed in terms of the decision rendered and also relied upon the decision in ( Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2014) 5 SCC 369) on the same ground.

9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has also referred to the decisions in (The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others,2019 0 Supreme (SC) 246) and ( State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar and another, (2019) 5 SCC 570 (Crl. Appeal No.336/2019) with Criminal Appeal No.337/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Tinku Sharma