Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7914 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 22 October, 2025

                                                                       Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010140862025




                                                                 2025:GAU-AS:13983

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

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./865/2025

            KAMRUL HUSSAIN @ AMRUL HUSSAIN @ RINKUL
            S/O- ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE.
            R/O- VILL.- DHINGARATI, P.O.- LAHARIGHAT, DIST.- MORIGAON, ASSAM.


            VERSUS


            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSAM


            2:MARUFA KHATUN
             D/O- INNAS ALI.
            R/O- VILL.- CHATIANTOLI
             P.O. AND P.S.- LAHORIGHAT
             DIST.- MORIGAON
            ASSAM.


            3:JOYMON NESSA
            W/O- INNAS ALI.
            R/O- VILL.- CHATIANTOLI
             P.O. AND P.S.- LAHORIGHAT
             DIST.-MORIGAON
            ASSAM


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. J AHMED, H G DAISY,R BEGUM

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR Z RAHMAN
                                                                            Page No.# 2/7

                                 BEFORE
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA



For the petitioner             : Mr. J. Ahmed           .... Advocate.


For the respondent no.1        : Mr. B. Sharma   .... Addl. P.P., Assam.


For the respondent nos.2 & 3   : Mr. Z. Rahman         .... Advocate.


Date of hearing & judgment     : 22.10.2025



                          JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Z. Rahman, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, for quashing of the FIR of Laharighat P.S. Case No.79/2024 under Section 366(A) of the IPC r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act as well as the proceedings of POCSO Case No.64/2025 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon.

3. The respondent No.3, i.e the mother of the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR on 16.04.2024 at Laharighat P.S., alleging, inter-alia, that her daughter, who was born on 18.02.2007, was kidnapped by the accused person on his motorcycle on 11.04.2024, when the informant's daughter was walking on the government road. It was also alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim. Subsequently, she was recovered by the police and handed over to the Page No.# 3/7

informant.

4. A case being Laharighat P.S. Case No.79/2024 under Sections 366(A) of the IPC r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act was registered and investigation commenced. Subsequently, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 366 of the IPC r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act, showing the petitioner as an absconder.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the victim, who at the time of the occurrence had crossed the age of 17 years and was on the verge of majority, had voluntarily eloped with the petitioner and stayed with him in a hotel. Subsequently, after the victim attained majority in the month of March, 2025, the marriage of the victim with the petitioner was solemnized on 18.03.2025, whereafter, they have been maintaining a happy conjugal life. It is also stated that the petitioner and victim filed an affidavit in this regard before the Chief Administrative Officer, District & Sessions Judge Court, Morigaon, fixing a Meharama of Rs.30,000/- for the purpose of their marriage. An additional affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner stating that subsequently, they had applied for marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the Marriage Officer, after observing all formalities issued Marriage Certificate dated 26.08.2025, copy of which is annexed to the said additional affidavit, which I have perused. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 supporting the aforesaid facts and stating that there is no objection on the part of the respondent side, if the pending criminal proceedings are quashed.

Page No.# 4/7

6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.2 & 3 that no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the criminal proceedings and it is a fit case, where the same may be quashed.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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:

Page No.# 5/7

(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. 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 Page No.# 6/7

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 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."

11. It is apparent from the contents of the FIR itself that the victim, who was on the verge of majority, had voluntarily accompanied the accused petitioner, inasmuch as, it is not possible for a person to have single handedly kidnapped a grown up girl on a motorcycle and thereafter, check into a room in a hotel. Moreover, now the parties have entered into marriage and both the parties have taken the stand that they do not want continuance of the criminal proceedings.

12. 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 Page No.# 7/7

cause harm to the reputation of the alleged victim herself and ending the matter at this stage would not have any adverse social impact.

13. 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 Cr.P.C. to quash the Charge-Sheet No. 37/2025 dated 28.02.2025 and any further proceeding arising out of Laharighat P.S. Case No.79/2024 registered under Section 366(A) of the IPC r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

14. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing the Charge-Sheet No. 37/2025 dated 28.02.2025 and any further proceeding arising out of Laharighat P.S. Case No.79/2024 registered under Section 366(A) of the IPC r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant