Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 8 February, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010040062020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./171/2020
MD. AMEL AND ANR.
S/O JAMIR UDDIN, R/O VILL-NO. 2 BACHASIMALU, P.S.-DHEKIAJULI, DIST-
SONITPUR, ASSAM
2: MD SURUJ ALI
S/O JAMIRUDDIN
R/O VILL-NO. 2 BACHASIMALU
P.S.-DHEKIAJULI
DIST-SONITPUR
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:MD NURUL ISLAM
S/O LATE MOKKASH ALI
R/O MARISALI
P.S.-DHEKIAJULI
DIST-SONITPUR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. I HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
08.02.2022
The petitioners Md. Amel and Md. Suraj Ali approached this Court by filing
this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside and quashing the FIR
and charge-sheet No. 418 dated 31.10.2014 and subsequent proceeding
pending before the Court of learned Additional CJM Sonitpur, Dhekiajuli in
connection with G.R. Case No. 681/2014, corresponding to Dhekiajuli P.S. Case
No. 177/2014 under Section 366/34 IPC.
Heard Md. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.
F.A. Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. B. Sharma,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.
The factual background leading to filing of this present petition is briefly
stated as under:-
"On 22.03.2014, an FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 2 Md. Suraj Ali
before the O.C. Borsola Police Outpost to the effect that around two months ago
her daughter namely, Mustt Chan Banu was socially married to Md. Umar Ali of
Village Pambari under Lahari Ghat P.S. of Morigaon District and when his
daughter came to his house for few days then on 20.03.2014 at around 4:00
A.M., Md. Amel with the help of Md. Suraj Ali and Md. Jamiruddin eloped her to
an unknown place and robbed her jewelleries which include golden jewelleries,
silver chain of 3 bori, 2 bangles of 3 bori, ear rings of half bori, payal of 2 bori
which were gifted to his daughter by her in-laws. On the basis of the said FIR,
Page No.# 3/5
from the Borsola Outpost, the O.C. Dhekiajuli P.S. has registered a case vide
DKJ. Case No. 177/14, under Sections 366/34 IPC and investigated same and
the investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the
petitioners to stand trial in the Court under Section 366/34 IPC.
Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim
girl has love affairs with the petitioner No. 1 Md. Amel. She was aged about 19
years at the relevant time. Hence, she eloped with the petitioner Md. Amel at
her own sweet will and since then she has been living with the petitioner till
date and they were blessed with 3 children.
It is further submitted that the informant of this case also filed an affidavit
before this Court to the effect that out of misunderstanding he filed the FIR and
now he has realized his mistake and felt guilty for filing the said FIR and that
difference between the petitioner and the informant was resolved by the family
members of the parties and his daughter got married observing social custom
norms, in presence of the Kazi. They are leading a happy conjugal life and they
are blessed with 3 children and that he has no objection in quashing the case
pending before the learned Court below.
Mr. Hussain, therefore, contended to quash and set aside the FIR dated
22.03.2014 and also the charge-sheet dated 31.10.2014 and subsequent
criminal proceeding pending before the learned Additional CJM, Sonitpur.
Per contra Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
State/respondent in his usual fairness, submits that the victim in her statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. categorically
stated that she eloped with the petitioner No. 1 at her own sweet will and that
Page No.# 4/5
her age has been mentioned as 19 years in both her statements, and as such
she is a major girl and in view of subsequent development between the parites
he has no objection in allowing the petition.
Having heard the submissions of learned Advocats of both sides, I have
gone through the petition and also the documents placed on record and the
scanned copy of the records of the learned Court below.
It appears from the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as
well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that her age was 19 years at the relevant time
and she eloped with the petitioner No. 1 at her own sweet will. The
informant/respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to the effect that he lodged the
FIR out of misunderstanding and now he has realized his mistake, and
therefore, he has no objection in quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet.
Thus, a bare perusal of the statement of the victim girl both under Section
161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164 Cr.P.C. reveals that no ingredients of the offence
under Section 366 IPC has been made out against the petitioner and as such
this is a text book case of abuse of the process of the Court. Further it appears
that the victim and the petitioner No. 1 got married as per their social custom
and rituals and they are leading a happily married life and they are blessed with
3 children also.
Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to one
judgment of Criminal Petition No. 230/2018 dated 21.03.2018, also submits that
in similar situation, this Court has quashed the proceeding by exercising the
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and since the present petitioners are
similarly situated, the FIR and charge-sheet can be quashed by exercising the
Page No.# 5/5
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Having carefully gone through the same, I find
substance in his submission.
It is to be mentioned herein that Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of
decision held that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised
to quash the criminal proceeding. The deciding factor in such cases would be to
secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
Referrence in this context can be made to a decision of of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC
688.
Considering the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides herein
above and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record and also
in order to secure the ends of justice, and also prevent abuse of the process of
the Court, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR and charge-sheet dated
31.10.2014 and the subsequent proceeding pending in the Court of learned
Additional CJM, Sonitpur, arising out of G.R. Case No. 681/14 corresponding to
Dhekiajuli Case No. 177/2014, under Section 366/34 IPC. Accordingly, the FIR
and charge-sheet dated 31.10.2014 of Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 177/2014,
corresponding G.R. Case No. 681/2014, under Section 366/34 IPC and
subsequent proceeding before the learned Additional CJM, Sonitpur
In terms of above, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
