##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010097712026

2026:GAU-AS:7037

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : Crl.Pet./704/2026

UDAYAN SAIKIA AND ANR

SON OF KIRAN SAIKIA RESIDENT OF KAKOJAN BAM KUKURACHORA,

POLICE STATION - TEOK, DISTRICT - JORHAT, PIN -785683, ASSAM.

2: BONITA BHUYAN

DAUGHTER OF LATE DINA BHUYAN RESIDENT OF BONAI GAON

POLICE STATION - TEOK

DISTRICT - JORHAT

PIN - 785683

ASSA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. V A CHOWDHURY,

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

Page No.# 2/4

:: BEFORE ::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

O R D E R

21.05.2026

Heard Mr. V.A. Chowdhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

Also heard Mr. Bidyut Sarma, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for

quashing the proceedings of Sessions Case No.71/2025 pending in the Court of the

learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, Assam.

3. On 26.11.2024, the informant lady had lodged an FIR before the police stating

that she was in a relationship with the other petitioner Udayan Saikia, who was

already married to another woman. On an earlier occasion, she had lodged an FIR

before the police and the same was registered as Jorhat P.S. Case No.553/2023. In

that case, Udayan Saikia was arrested by the police and after being released from jail,

he again entered into the life of the informant. He forced her to have physical

relationship with him. On most of the occasions, he promised to marry her and had

sexual intercourse with her. At the time of filing of the FIR, she was three months

pregnant.

4. The petitioner Udayan Saikia had put pressure upon the other petitioner i.e. the

informant to give birth to the child.

5. Apart from all those allegations, the informant further alleged that she was

physically humiliated by the petitioner Udayan Saikia.

6. Now, both Udayan Saikia and the informant have come together to this Court

stating that they have already settled their disputes and are no longer interested in

Page No.# 3/4

prosecuting further before the trial court.

7. Mr. Choudhury has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that

was delivered in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582

wherein the Supreme Court had held that where the question involved is purely

personal in nature, the court should ordinarily accept terms of compromise even in

criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in

favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they

are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more

effective and meaningful litigations.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

9. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has

been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR

1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the

Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a

series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226

or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and

reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration

wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any

court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay

down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines

or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such

power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint,

even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not

pri