Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam
2022 Latest Caselaw 2569 Gua

                                                             Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010042082022




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

                              Case No. : Crl.Pet./197/2022

           KUKHESWAR @ KOSHESWAR DAS AND ANR.
           SON OF SRI MEDURA DAS
           R/O VILL- BRAHMAJAN DANIGAON
           P.O. BRAHMAJAN, P.S. GOHPUR
           DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM

           2: SRI PALASH PRATIM DAS
            SON OF SRI UPEN DAS
           R/O VILL- KACHARKATA RANGCHALI
           P.O. JANATA
            P.S. BIHALI
           DIST. BISWANATH
           ASSA

           VERSUS

           THE STATE OF ASSAM
           REP. BY ITS PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM

           2:MS. NILAKSHI DAS
            D/O. SRI KOSHESWAR DAS
            R/O. VILL- BRAHMAJAN DANIGAON
            P.O. BRAHMAJAN
            P.S. GOHPUR
            DIST- BISWANATH
           ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR Page No.# 2/4

Date : 29-07-2022

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. L. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. This joint petition by the informant and the accused is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of P.R. Case No. 12/2020 (Corresponding to Gohpur PS Case No. 204/2019) pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), [S.D.J.M(M) for short] Gohpur, Biswanath, Assam on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties.

3. Mr. L. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that due to some misunderstanding the petitioner No.1 filed the F.I.R. whereupon the above noted police case was registered against the petitioner No.2 and now, they have by a Mutual Agreement executed on 29.01.2022 agreed to settle the case on compromise. Mr. Gogoi further submitted that the alleged victim girl/respondent No.2 herein is now married to another person and both parties have been in cordial relationship since long time. Therefore, Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that to secure the ends of justice and to endure the cordial relationship between the two families it is desirable that the proceeding be quashed.

4. Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state respondent, submitted that after completion of investigation police laid a charge-sheet under Section 366A of the IPC against the petitioner No.2, which is a Sessions triable offence showing him as absconder. Mr. Lahkar, however, Page No.# 3/4

submitted that in the backdrop of the facts and as there is no other complaint other than kidnapping of the victim girl, the petition as prayed for may be accepted.

5. Mr. A. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the victim girl/respondent No.2 herein, reiterated the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has relied on the affidavit of 'No objection' filed by the victim.

6. An F.I.R. was lodged on 20.05.2019 before the in-charge of Ghahigaon O.P. by the petitioner No.1 that on that day at about 6 p.m., the petitioner No.2 kidnapped his daughter (aged about 16 years) and since then her whereabouts was not known. Based on the aforesaid F.I.R., a case being Gohpur P.S. Case No. 204/2019 was registered and on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid under Section 366A of the IPC against the petitioner No.2 showing him absconder.

7. It may be pointed out that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court can interfere only when it is satisfied that it is necessary (i) to give effect to any order passed by the court; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court and

(iii) to secure the ends of justice. This power is extraordinary in nature and can be exercised sparingly in respect of the matter pending in criminal court with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases.

8. Having considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides and the joint averments made by both sides and further, the 'Mutual Agreement', dated 29.01.2022, as well as the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2/alleged victim, this court is of the opinion that as chances of an ultimate conviction of the petitioner No.2 is bleak, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue, the aforesaid criminal proceeding may be quashed as prayed.

Page No.# 4/4

9. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed quashing the proceeding in P.R.C No.12/2020 (corresponding to Gohpur PS Case No.204/2019) as prayed.

10. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant