Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2582 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 8 August, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010127582021




                                                                   2025:GAU-AS:10437

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

                                Case No. : Crl.Pet./433/2021

            GUNJA DUTTA
            SON OF LATE PHANIDHAR DUTTA,
            A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF GARMUR NAPAM, P.S. JORHAT, DIST.
            JORHAT, ASSAM



            VERSUS

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

            2:SMT. RINA MITHI TERONPI
             W/O BIDYA SING RONGPHER
            A RESIDENT OF VILL- RONGKURU
            P.S. KHERONI
            DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG

            ASSAM
            MOBILE NUMBER(S)-8471997939
            863879150

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S BANIK, A N HUSSAIN,MR. M K RONGPI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. R BORA,MR. D GOGOI,MS. S KHANIKAR (R-
2),MS H TERANGPI (R-2)




             Linked Case : Crl.Pet./361/2021

            GUNJA DUTTA
                                                                                 Page No.# 2/7

              S/O LATE PHANIDHAR DUTTA
              R/O GARMUR NAPAM
              PS JORHAT
              DIST. JORHAT
              ASSAM


              VERSUS

              THE STATE OF ASSAM
              REP. BY PP
              ASSAM

              2:RINA MITHI TERONPI
              W/O BIDYA SING RONGPHAR
               R/O RONGKURU
               PS KHERONI
               DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG
              ASSAM
               M NO. 8471997939
               8638791502
               ------------

Advocate for : MR. S BANIK Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 08.08.2025

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (S.K. Sharma, J)

Heard Mr. S Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P S Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. Also heard Mr. R Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. By way of these two criminal petitions the petitioner has challenged the FIR as well as the Charge-Sheet pertaining to Kheroni Police Station Case No. 51/2021 under Sections Page No.# 3/7

365/376/506 IPC, wherein the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process to the petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Smt. Rina Mithi Teronpi in both the aforesaid criminal petitions.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2021 the Opposite Party/Informant had lodged an Ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Kheroni Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner had shown temptations to the informant and had then forcibly taken her in his vehicle to Jorhat where at night he had raped her and that the following day he had dropped her back. On receipt of the Ejahar, police authorities registered Kheroni Police Station Case No. 51/2021 under Sections 365/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Ejahar was received and registered on 19.05.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged victim of the case was a married woman who voluntarily went with the petitioner on account of their relationship.

6. Pointing to the medical report in respect of the alleged victim, it is pointed out that she had clearly stated in her history that she eloped with the petitioner at her own will and had been to Jorhat, where she met the relatives of the petitioner and that the petitioner had applied Sindoor voluntarily in presence of relatives and that she had sexual intercourse on her own will. However, the Investigating Officer has submitted the Charge-Sheet without appreciating the contents of the medical examination report.

7. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court, without applying its mind to the materials available on record mechanically took cognizance of the said offences.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the uncontroverted allegations, no case under Sections 365/376/506 is made out either and accordingly, prayed for quashing of the FIR as well as the Charge-Sheet.

9. The alleged victim/respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit before this Court, wherein she has stated that she was a consenting party to the acts alleged in the aforesaid FIR, Charge- Sheet as well as the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and that the FIR Page No.# 4/7

was lodged out of anger and misunderstanding. It is further stated that she does not support the allegations made in the purported FIR and Charge-Sheet as well as her previous statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. R Bora has also submitted that the respondent No. 2 is now leading a happy married life since the last 5 years and in case the trial is allowed to proceed, she would be further humiliated in the eyes of the society.

11. I have duly considered the submissions advanced by the parties and also perused the contents of the FIR, Charge-Sheet and the relevant documents available on record.

12. It is by now settled that a High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can very well quash a criminal proceeding or a criminal complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but while doing so, the Court is to follow certain principles as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab and Another reported in 2012 10 SCC 303, and in State of Madhya Pradesh -Vs- Laxmi Narayan and Others reported in 2019 5 SCC

688.

13. In the case of Laxmi Narayan, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is submitted that instant case falls within the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

14. For ready reference, paragraph-13 of Laxmi Narayan (Supra) is extracted herein below:

"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

(i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

(ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Page No.# 5/7

Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC.

For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a Page No.# 6/7

settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

15. The allegation leveled by the respondent No. 2 relates to the commission of offence under Section 376 IPC. It is well settled that this court should not normally exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash offences of heinous nature having social impact on the basis of settlement between the parties. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kapil Gupta Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1030 after dealing with the law laid down in this behalf has concluded that though the court should be slow in quashing the proceeding wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. In the instant case, the alleged victim has completely repudiated her previous statements alleging rape.

16. Upon perusal of the material on record it is noticed that this Court while granting bail to the petitioner by its order dated 23.06.2021 passed in B.A. No. 1290/2021 had recorded that on perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the police forwarding report, it is noticed that the victim is married and she in fact voluntarily accompanied the accused petitioner who is a Police Officer aged about 52 years.

17. It is palpably clear that there was an existing relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and it would not have been possible for the petitioner to come from Jorhat to Karbi Anglong and forcefully take away a married woman all by himself as alleged in the FIR.

18. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by both the parties, this Court is of the view that although the allegations, on the face of it is serious, in the given facts of the present case, having regard to the present stand of the alleged victim, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the trial to commence. Rather, it is likely to result in unproductive expansion of judicial time and would cause harm to the reputation of the alleged victim herself and ending Page No.# 7/7

the matter at this stage would not have any adverse impact on society.

19. Considering the factual background of the present case and also considering the nature of offence including the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case, where this Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC to quash G.R. No. 89/2021 corresponding to PRC No. 40/2021 arising out of Kheroni Police Station Case No. 51/2021 under Sections 365/376/506 IPC.

20. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are allowed by setting aside and quashing the G.R. No. 89/2021 corresponding to PRC No. 40/2021 arising out of Kheroni Police Station Case No. 51/2021.

21. Return the TCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant