The court asserted that an FIR can be quashed if the informant withdraws their complaint, acknowledging it was filed under misunderstanding, ensuring that the interests of justice are served.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

Heard Mr. G. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam; and Mr. A.J. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. The instant criminal petition under Section 528 , Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [ BNSS ], 2023 is preferred seeking setting aside and quashing of a First Information Report [FIR], registered as Baihata Chariali Police Station Case no. 83/2025 on 01.04.2025 and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

3. It was the respondent no. 2 herein as the informant who lodged the First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Baihata Charliali Police Station on 14.03.2025 naming the petitioner herein as accused no. 1 along with a Lat Mondal from the Office of the Circle Officer, North Guwahati Revenue Circle, Amingaon, Guwahati as accused no. 2.

4. In the FIR, the respondent no. 2-informant had inter-alia alleged that he had been residing in Guwahati in view of his service. He further stated that he had a plot of measuring 3 Kathas 9 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 143 and K.P. Patta no. 291, situate at South Lenga Village, Mouza – Bar Bongkhar, North Guwahati Revenue Circle, District – Kamrup [‘the subject-plot’]. The respondent no. 2-informant further alleged that without his knowledge, the accused no. 1 with the help of the accused no. 2 got her name mutated for the subject- plot in the revenue records and also took possession of the subject-plot. Suspecting that there were also involvements of other persons, the respondent no. 2-informant requested the police authorities to make necessary investigation.

5. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge entrusted a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Baihata Chariali Police Station to cause a preliminary enquiry. The Sub-Inspector of Police after causing a preliminary enquiry reported on 01.04.2025 that there was a prima facie case which would necessitate further investigation. Thereafter, the FIR has been registered as Baihata Chariali Police Station Case no. 83/2025 for the offences under Sections 3 18[4]/316[5]/336[3]/338/337/ 340[2]/3[5], Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [ BNS ], 2023.

6. It is stated that the investigation is being carried out at present. But, the respondent no. 2-informant has sworn an affidavit on 04.07.2025 stating that he had filed the FIR on 01.04.2025 at Baihata Chariali Police Station, registered as Baihata Chariali Police Station Case no. 83/2025, out of misconception on facts and misapprehension. In the affidavit, the respondent no. 2-informant has further asserted that he does not want to proceed further with the case and he is doing so at the cost of the necessary consequences.

7. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2-informant has affirmed that the affidavit annexed to the present criminal petition, as Annexure-III, is an affidavit which has been sworn by the respondent no. 2-informant. He has further submitted that the respondent no. 2-informant is not interested to pursue the matter further.

8. On a look at the FIR [Annexure-I], it is seen that save and except the offence under Section 3 18[4], BNS , the other offences defined by Section 3 16[5]/336[3]/338/337/340[2], BNS are not offences which can be compounded under the provisions of Section 3 59 of the BNS S .

9. As the respondent no. 2 as the informant has affirmed and asserted that he is not interested to pursue the case further, the matter of investigation even if it resulted in submission of the charge-sheet, is not going to serve any fruitful purpose if the respondent no. 2-informant is not going to support the case of the prosecution. As a result, the possibility of the case resulting in conviction is remote. The informant himself has affirmed that the FIR he lodged on 01.04.2025 was due to misconception of fact and misplaced apprehension. It has been reiterated by the respondent no. 2-informant in the af