Ruhul Amin vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 1262 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Ruhul Amin vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 9 June, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010167532024




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

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./1018/2024

            RUHUL AMIN
            S/O ABU TAHER
            VILL- JOMERKUR
            P.S.KALGACHIA
            DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:ALMINARA KHATUN
             D/O IMRAN HUSSAINVILL- HALDIA GAON
            P.S. KALGACHIA
            DIST. BARPETA
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H A AHMED, MR. R ALI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. M Z SHAH (R-2)


                                   BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                           ORDER

Date : 09.06.2025

1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. M. Z. Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

Page No.# 2/6

2. This criminal petition has been registered on filing of an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner, namely, Ruhul Amin praying for quashing of the proceeding of PRC Case No. 117/2022 under Sections 406/376 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are that on 02.12.2021, the respondent No. 2 had filed an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Kalgachia Police Station, inter alia, alleging that she was having love affair with the present petitioner since one year prior to the lodging of the FIR. It is also stated in the FIR that on 28.11.2021 at about 5:30 PM, the petitioner informed the informant over telephone that he will take her to his house and marry her.

4. It is also alleged in the FIR that thereafter the informant/respondent No. 2 came to the house of the petitioner from where he took her to nearby field where he established physical relationship with the informant. It is also alleged that the petitioner again established physical relationship with her. However, later on he declined to marry the informant. On the shift of the said FIR, Kalgachia P.S. Case No. 751/2021 was registered under Sections 406/376 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was initiated.

5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present petitioner under Sections 406/376 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta and the said case was registered as PRC No. 117/2022.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after lodging of the FIR when the respondent No. 2 was subjected to medical examination, Page No.# 3/6

nothing was found that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner initially did not marry the respondent No. 2 only because he was unemployed at that point of time though there was love affair between them.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that later on, on 16.05.2024, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 executed a deed of marriage agreement and later on performed Muslim marriage as per the Islamic law before the Qazi (Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrar).

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that now the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are living happily as a couple and they are continuing a peaceful conjugal life. He further submits that both the parties have also executed a compromise agreement on 25.06.2024. He also submits that the victim girl i.e., the respondent No. 2 is the wife of the present petitioner and initially also she accompanied him out of her own sweet will as she was major at that point of time and there was consensual relationship between them. He submits that as the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are now living a happy conjugal life and there is the continuation of the proceedings of PRC No. 117/2022 would be a futile exercise and would not serve the ends of justice.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that though an offence under Section 376 is a non-compoundable offence, however, under the circumstances as existing the instant case, this Court has power to quash the proceedings of the same PRC case in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

10. In support of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of " Narinder Page No.# 4/6

Singh & Ors vs. State Of Punjab & Anr" reported in "(2014) 6 SCC 466".

11. He has also cited the ruling of Apex Court in the case of " Kapil Gupta versus State of NCT of Delhi and Anr." reported in "(2022) 8 Supreme 341" . He

has also cited some of the rulings of this Court in which the proceedings were quashed under similar circumstances.

12. On the other hand, Mr. D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that though the offence involved in this case i.e., under Section 376 of IPC, is a non-compoundable offence, however, he fairly submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, there is a bleak possibility of the case ending in conviction.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submits that the respondent No. 2 is presently staying with the petitioner as his wife and the respondent No. 2 has no objection if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed.

14. The Apex Court has observed in the case of " Narinder Singh & Ors vs. State Of Punjab & Anr" (supra) is as follows:-

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the

following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the Page No.# 5/6

offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the 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. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to Page No.# 6/6

whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

15. In the instant case, though an offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code is a non-compoundable offence as in itself is a serious offence in which normally the Court should not exercise its powers under Section 482 to quash the proceedings, however, in the instant case, it appears that even before the FIR was filed in this case, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were in love and there was a relationship between them and presently, they are a happily married couple and therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that there is a bleak possibility of the case ending in conviction and continuation of the criminal case which was filed by the respondent No. 2 when she was an unmarried girl and now when she is the wife of the petitioner, the continuation of proceeding will not only be a great oppression and embarrassment for the petitioner but also for the respondent No. 2.

16. This Court is of opinion that great oppression and extreme injustice will be caused if this Court does not exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the instant proceedings.

17. Hence, for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of Court, the proceedings of PRC Case No. 117/2022 is hereby quashed.

18. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court immediately.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant