Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam
2021 Latest Caselaw 1919 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010076582021




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

                                  Case No. : Crl.Pet./303/2021

             ATAR ALI @ ATOWAR ALI AND ANR
             S/O JOYNAL ALI, VILL. CHAULIABARI P.O. SARUPETA, P.S.
             PATACHARKUCHI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM.

             2: AJMINA KHATUN
              D/O LATE BAHAR ALI
             W/O ATAR ALI
             VILL. CHAULIABARI
              P.O. SARUPETIA
              P.S. PATACHARKUCHI
              DIST. BARPETA
             ASSAM

             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. R ALI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P.S. LAHKAR, ADDL. PP, ASSAM

BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

Dates of hearing & judgment : 20.08.2021.

Page No.# 2/4

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the two petitioners who are accused as well as the victim, have sought for setting aside and quashing of the criminal proceeding vide PRC Case No.310/2019, arising out of Sorbhog P.S. Case No.75/2018 (corresponding to G.R. No.1647/2018) under Section 366(A) IPC, pending before the learned Addl. CJM, Barpeta.

2. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, representing the State respondent. Also perused the record.

3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the informant is the father of the petitioner No.2, who had love affairs with the petitioner No.1. Due to love and affection, the petitioner No.2 voluntarily went to the petitioner No.1, on 07.04.2018. On 08.04.2018, the informant lodged an ejahar in Sorbhog P.S., alleging inter alia that on 07.04.2018, at about 2:30 P.M., while his daughter (petitioner No.2) was coming home from Baguriguri Banat Madrassa, the petitioner No.1 along with another accused, kidnapped her from the road. Accordingly the Sorbhog P.S. Case No.75/2018, under Section 366(A) of the IPC was registered. The informant died on 15.11.2018.

4. During the course of investigation, police recovered the victim, who was medically examined and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. As per the medical report, on the date of examination i.e. on 10.04.2018, the victim was above 16 years and below 18 years and after completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet, against the petitioner No.1 and another accused, under Section 366(A) of the IPC.

5. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner No.1/accused that he had love affairs with the petitioner No.2 for a long period and on 31.12.2020, the petitioner No.1 entered into marriage with the petitioner No.2 and currently they are living peacefully as husband and wife. It is stated by the petitioners that the informant of the case has already expired and the matter has been amicably settled by the villagers, outside the Court. Moreover, as the petitioner No.2/ victim is leading a conjugal life with the petitioner No.1/accused, she is not willing to proceed further with the case, pending in the trial Court. In support of her Page No.# 3/4

willingness not to proceed with the case, the petitioner No.2/the victim have also sworn an affidavit before the Notary Public, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, wherein she has also stated that she is not willing to proceed with the case, as she voluntarily went to the petitioner No.1/accused and the FIR was lodged by her father, due to misunderstanding.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Gian Sing vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 203, held that in non-compoundable offence also the High Court can exercise inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash FIR or criminal proceeding, if it is satisfied that on the face of settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender to convict.

7. In a recent decision dated 12.04.2021, in Criminal Appeal Nos.394-395 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.3175-76 of 2021) in Anand D.V. vs. State and another, the Hon'ble Apex Court also held that in a case which was filed due to miscommunication at the relevant point of time and now the party has fully resolved the issue and are happily married since filing of the FIR, far back on 11.10.2014, the basis for FIR does not survive and the parties have jointly opted for quashing of the FIR, has allowed the prayer for quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC.

8. Turning to the present case, although the FIR was filed far back in the year 2018 by the father of the victim girl but by this time, the informant also expired and the victim as well as the accused has come forward with a joint petition for quashing on the ground of marriage between the parties subsequent thereto, it appears that there nothing survives to proceed with the matter, as no any conviction will sustain if the proceeding is allowed to continue.

9. The learned Addl. P.P., Assam has also raised no objection in view of the factual background of the case and the legal pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

10. In view of the observation and discussion above, the petition is allowed and the proceeding, pertaining to PRC Case No.310/2019, arising out of Sorbhog P.S. Case No.75/2018 (corresponding to G.R. No.1647/2018) under Section 366(A) IPC, pending before the learned Addl. CJM, Barpeta, is hereby quashed and set aside.

Page No.# 4/4

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant