Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 19 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010223982019
2025:GAU-AS:11012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1094/2019
ABDUR RAZZAQU @ ABDUR RAZZAK @ RINKU AND ANR.
S/O ABDUR MALEK, VILL-MADHUSOULMARI PART-I, P.S.-GAURIPUR,
DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783331
2: AZAHAR ALI
S/O FAZAR ALI
VILL-MADHUSOULMARI PART-I
P.S. AND P.O.-GAURIPUR
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-78333
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:MD. MOTAHAR ALI PRODHANI
S/O LATE MONSER ALI PRODHANI
R/O VILL-MADHUSOULMARI PART-I
P.S. AND P.O.-GAURIPUR
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783331
3:MISS SAMINA YESMIN PRODHANI
D/O MD MOTAHAR ALI PRODHANI
W/O ABDUR RAZZAK@RINK
VILL- MADHUSOULMARI PART-I
PS - GAURIPUR
PO- GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN - 78333
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MR. M HOSSAIN,MS F INTAZ
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, K U AHMED (R2, R3),MD NAZIR AHMED (R2, R3)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
Date of hearing : 19.08.2025
Date of judgment : 19.08.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. U. Ahmed,
learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State/respondent No.1.
2. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of
the Charge-sheet No.165/2015 under Sections 120B/366/384 of the IPC corresponding to
G.R. Case No.3484/2014 in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No.656/2014 pending in
the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Dhubri.
3. The F.I.R. dated 18.08.2014 lodged by the father of the victim states inter-alia that
his daughter while returning from her College by a bus, the petitioner along with two
other boys kidnapped her, took her to a particular road, confined her there and by
assaulting her and by showing a pistol made her sign two blank non-judicial stamp papers
by further threatening her not to disclose the facts to anyone. However, the father stated
that the victim told him the incident and he went and confronted the petitioner and his
Page No.# 3/5
family members who requested them not to take any action and that they would
compromise the matter. On their assurance the father waited. However, the petitioner did
not return the papers as they promised and it was further stated in the F.I.R. that the
accused persons, which included the petitioner, threatened them that they would kidnap
the victim and kill her.
4. On receipt of the said ejahar the police registered the case under Sections
120B/366/384 of the IPC and investigated the case.
5. It is stated at the Bar that after the registration of the said F.I.R. both the parties
had given a written submission that the case has been compromised but the same was
not considered by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer after completion
of the investigation submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No.165/2015 on
30.04.2015. It is this charge-sheet that the petitioner has challenged before this Court on
the ground of settlement.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner
No.1 and the victim i.e. the daughter of the informant had married and now they have a
child and that both the families have entered into a settlement.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 i.e. the father of the victim
had also filed an additional affidavit stating therein that the petitioner No.1 and the victim
had a love relationship and that they signed a marriage agreement which the victim did in
her own volition. However, the victim did not disclose the matter to her father and the
father lodged the case on non-information. He further submits that when the father came
Page No.# 4/5
to know about the actual fact, he requested the police to close the case as the petitioner
No.1 and the victim were living a conjugal life peacefully. The learned counsel also
submits that the informant had sworn an affidavit before the Notary Public on 31.08.2019
whereby it is stated that both the parties have married and would not continue the case.
It is also submitted that in spite of the application before the Police, the Police submitted
the Charge-sheet against the petitioner. In the said additional affidavit, the affidavit sworn
by the father of the victim was also annexed therewith.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
9. It is a settled position of law that settlement in respect of cases which are related
to personal issues can be compromised and settled amongst the parties since the same
has no affect on the society at large. Moreover, in the instant case, it is seen, as is
reflected by the affidavit filed by the informant, that the daughter of the informant not
having informed her father about her marriage with the petitioner No.1, the father lodged
the F.I.R. It can so happen because the daughter i.e. the victim would be scared to tell
the fact to her father.
10. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in offences where the settlement has
been entered into between the offender and the victim and it is noticed that continuation
of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands
that the dispute between the parties be put to an end and the peace is restored, in those
cases quashing of the F.I.R. may be allowed by the High Courts as well as other Courts.
In another decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @
Page No.# 5/5
Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 it is observed that
under Section 482 the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of any court and to
secure the ends of justice may quash a First Information Report or a Criminal Proceeding
on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim.
In the said judgment it is also observed that in cases of serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, the same may not be quashed even
though settlement has been reached but in cases which are private in nature and which
does not have a serious impact upon the society, the same may be quashed if settlement
is reached.
11. In the instant case it is noticed that the petitioner No.1 and the victim had married
each other and are leading a peaceful conjugal life and they have a daughter too. In view
of the above, it is in the opinion of this Court that since the offence is of private nature
without any adverse impact on the society, the same may be quashed for the interest of
justice.
12. As such, the F.I.R. dated 18.08.2014 as well as the Charge-sheet No.165/2015
dated 30.04.2015 and all subsequent proceedings are quashed in the interest of justice.
13. The Petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
