Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1373 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010165832018




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

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./732/2018

            BADRUL ISLAM LASKAR @ ROFIQUE UDDIN AND 2 ORS.
            S/O ALAUDDIN LASKAR, VILLAGE AND PO BAWERGHAT PT-I, PS AND
            DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM

            2: RUNA BEGUM MAZUMDER
            W/O BADRUL ISLAM LASKAR @ RAFIQUE UDDIN
            VILLAGE AND PO BAWERGHAT PT-I
             PS AND DIST. HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM

            3: NAZRUL ISLAM LASKAR
            W/O JALAL UDDIN LASKAR @ RAFIQUE UDDIN
            VILLAGE AND PO BAWERGHAT PT-I
             PS AND DIST. HAILAKANDI
            ASSA

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
            REP. BY PP, ASSAM

            2:RENU BEGUM MAZUMDER
            W/O LATE HARUS ALI MAZUMDER
            VILLAGE BOWERGHAT PT-II
             PO- BOWERGHAT PT-I
             PS HAILAKANDI
             DIST. HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM
             PIN-78816

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A M BARBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/6




                                  BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG

                                          ORDER

Date : 27-04-2022

Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. B. Sahari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2] This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying for setting aside and quashing the impugned proceeding of G.R. Case No.331/2017 arising out of Hailakandi P.S. Case No.118/2017 u/s 366(A)/34 IPC.

3] The case of the petitioners in a nut shell is that the accused/petitioner No.1 and the alleged victim girl/petitioner No.2 were in love with each other for a long time and wanted to marry each other. However, the mother of the petitioner No.2 did not agree to such marriage and she had arranged the marriage of her daughter/petitioner No.2 with another boy. To avoid such forceful marriage the petitioner No.2 with the help of petitioner No.3 took shelter with petitioner No.1. An FIR was accordingly lodged on 25/02/2017 due to misguidance and misunderstanding with a wrong impression that the petitioner No.1 and 3 kidnapped petitioner No.2/alleged victim daughter of informant/respondent No.2. However, on the intervention of the local respectable persons of both sides the petitioner No.2 went back to the custody of her mother with the assurance that she would marry the petitioner No.1. Accordingly, the marriage was registered before the Muslim Marriage Registration and Kazi, Hailakandi. They now are maintaining a peaceful conjugal life. After solemnization of marriage, both the parties approached the Investigating Officer with marriage registration certificate of petitioner No.1 and 2 to withdraw the case as infructuous, but the Investigating Officer apprised that the case is already charge sheeted on 24/10/2017 vide charge sheet No.435/2017 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi. Accordingly, the case in pending at the stage of appearance before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi. The petitioner No.1/husband of the petitioner No.2 is in bail, but the Page No.# 3/6

petitioner No.3 is wrongly shown as absconder in the charge sheet. Therefore, the petitioner No.3 is apprehending that he may be arrested and detained in jail in connection with the said case by issuing warrant of arrest at any time on the request of the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet. The next date of the case is fixed on 09/08/2018 for appearance of the accused petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi. The alleged victim daughter/petitioner No.1 was wrongly shown 14 years old in the FIR. Actually she was above seventeen years old on the date of lodging FIR on 25/02/2017 and she was above 18 years when she was married on 04/12/2017 to petitioner No.1. After solemnizing of marriage between the petitioner No.1 and 2, there is no cause of action between the parties. The marriage between the parties itself proves that the petitioner No.2 was not ever kidnapped by the petitioner No.1 and 3. The Investigating Officer did not properly investigate the case and as such wrongly submitted the C/S in the case and the case has no lawful basis and justification.

4] Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering above facts and circumstances of the matter, particularly when the alleged victim now happily married to the accused, had willingly gone to the accused, no offence was ever committed and the F.I.R. was lodged due to misunderstanding. He prayed to set aside and quashed the impugned proceeding of G.R. Case No.331/2017 u/s 366(A)/34 IPC for the interest of justice. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the apex court in the case of Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Central Bureau of Investigation ACB, Mumbai -Vs- Narewndra Lal Jail and others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 364 and the decisions of this court in Saddam Hussain Laskar -Vrs- The State of Assam & Anr. in Crl. Pet No.322/2017, Saidur Rahman Choudhury @ Saidur Rohmon Choudhury

-Vs- The State of Assam and Anr. in Crl. Pet No.1005/2017.

5] No objection is raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant who submits that the petitions are now leading a happily married life.

6] The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the victim girl is shown as 14 Page No.# 4/6

yrs of age and the offence is therefore of a serious nature and compounding of the matter between the parties should not be accepted. He has placed his reliance on the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others

-Vs- State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641

7] I have gone through the averments made by both the counsels for the parties and the documents appended thereon along with the citations relied upon by the learned counsels. In Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab and another (supra) which has held that :

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in the capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal Page No.# 5/6

proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether, to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

8] The same principal was applied in the Judgment of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation ACB, Mumbai -Vs- Narewndra Lal Jail and others (supra) and the decisions of this court in Saddam Hussain Laskar -Vrs- The State of Assam & Anr. (supra)and Saidur Rahman Choudhury @ Saidur Rohmon Choudhury -Vs- The State of Assam and Anr. (supra).

9] In the instant case, the parties have mutually settled the matter and are infact a happily married couple with no issues raised by the complainant. Considering the submission made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor regarding the age of the alleged victim, this is yet to be proved by way of evidence during trial. Therefore, in view of the above cited decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, I am of the considered opinion that any further proceedings of this case would unnecessary disrupt the lives of the married couple and that this is a fit case to invoke the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, G.R. Case No.331/2017 u/s 366(A)/34 IPC is squashed and set aside.

10] Crl. Pet. No.732 of 2018 thus stands allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE Page No.# 6/6

Comparing Assistant