[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 9 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010240012025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1339/2025
SAMIRUL ISLAM AND ANR
S/O KAYUM SK.
R/O VILLAGE SONAPUR, PO PURAN DIARA, PS MANKACHAR, DIST SOUTH
SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783135
2: MAMPI DAS
D/O MANORANJAN DAS
R/O VILLAGE LAKHIPUR
PO AND PS LAKHIPUR
DIST GOALPARA ASSAM PIN 78312
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM
2:MONORANJAN DAS
S/OLT. MOHON CH. DAS
R/O VILLAGE CHENGURCHAR DASPARA
PO PURAN DIARA PS MANKACHAR
DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM PIN 78313
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R KHANDAKAR,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A ROHMAN (R-2),MR. ROBIUL HOQUE (R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER
Date : 09.02.2026
Heard Mr. M. R. Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.
Page No.# 2/4
Haque, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. PP,
Assam.
2. By this application, the petitioners , i.e., accused persons and the victim, have
challenged the impugned proceeding of Special (P) Case No. 181/2024, arising out of
Mankachar P.S. Case No. 588/2017, registered under Sections 366(A)/376/511/34 of the
IPC, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, pending before the learned Special Judge,
South Salmara, Mankachar, Assam.
3. The petitioners have filed this joint petition for quashing of the above cases,
mainly on the ground of settlement and the informant, who is the father of the victim,
has also supported the said settlement and is a party to the Deed of Agreement entered
into between the parties on 25.08.2017.
4. The case started with First Information Report lodged by the respondent No. 2,
stating inter-alia, that his daughter, who is class XI standard student, was forcibly taken
by the petitioner No. 1, on the instruction of his father. On being informed, the
respondent No. 2 went to the house of the accused persons to bring his daughter back
with other village member, but they said that they will release his daughter only on the
next day. It was also stated that the accused person threatened the informant that if
they forcibly take his daughter from their house, they will kill him and burn his house.
Prayer was made to recover the victim.
5. On receipt of the said Ejahar, the police registered the case and after completion
of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet on 30.01.2018 against the
petitioner No. 1 under Section 366/376 of the IPC, read with Section 4 of the POCSO
Act. Thereafter, summons was issued to the petitioners and the proceedings started.
6. Mr. Khandkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the accused
Page No.# 3/4
person and the informant i.e., the respondent No. 2, entered into a Deed of Agreement,
wherein it was stipulated that due to some misunderstanding, the case was lodged by
the father of the victim and that a request was made to the Court to consider acquittal
of the petitioner. It is also agreed that the petitioner would not disturb the respondent
No. 2 or his daughter in any place or in any manner and live peacefully amongst them.
Mr. Khandakar has placed the affidavits sworn in by the victim, in which it was stated
that she got married to one Sri Nepal Barman and due to their wedlock, a child was
born. She has stated that she has been facing mental agony due to the instant
proceeding and has prayed that the same may be quashed for the ends of justice. On
the said ground, Mr. Khandkar has prayed for quashing of the instant proceeding.
7. Mr. R. Haque, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also placed the Deed of
Agreement executed between the petitioner and the informant, as stated above, and has
submitted that he has no objection if the case is closed. Rather for the betterment of his
daughter, he prays that the continuance of the said case will result further mental agony
of his daughter.
8. Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. PP, appearing for the State, submits that the matter
relates to an offence under the POCSO Act, wherein a minor girl was forcibly taken to
the house of the accused persons and there were serious allegations against the
accused persons in the said FIR and in view of the same, he prays that such matter
cannot be considered for settlement.
11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
12. It is no res-integra, as it has been held in Parbatbhai @ Parbatbhai
Bhimsingbhai Karmur and ors. vs. State of Gujrat and another , reported in
(2017) 9 SCC 64, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that crime such as murder,
rape, dacoity cannot be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Page No.# 4/4
Cr.P.C., which is now 528 of the BNSS, 2023. However, at the same time, it is held that in
cases of not very grave nature, such as matrimonial disputes, disputes relating to civil
nature the High Court has been given ample power to examine the same and to quash
specially on finding that the case would be a waste of time of the Trial Court and would
not reach to any logical ends, if the parties reaches a settlement that they would not like
to continue with the proceedings.
13. In the instant case, it is seen that the present petition is filed both by the accused
person and the victim and although the affidavit had been sworn in by the petitioner No.
1, but it is stipulated therein that he has been duly authorised and instructed by the
victim to swear the affidavit on her behalf too and as such, the contents of the petition
are the contents of the petitioner and the victim. Further, the victim as well as her father
had sworn affidavits before the concerned authority, stating the same facts, more so, the
victim had stated that she had married now to another person with whom she had a
child and that continuance of the present proceeding has resulted in a mental agony and
disturbance in her marital life.
14. In view of the above, this Court for the ends of justice finds it fit to quash the
criminal proceeding challenged in the instant petition, vide Special (P) Case No.
181/2024, arising out of Mankachar P.S. Case No. 588/2017, registered under Sections
366(A)/376/511/34 of the IPC, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, pending before
the learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar, Assam. This Court also quashes
the FIR as well as the charge sheet.
15. The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
