Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 9 February, 2026

                                                                           Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010166482025




                                                                    undefined

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

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./940/2025

            ASHABUL HOQUE AND ANR
            S/O- MONNAF ALI.
            VILL.- BHATNAPAITY, P.S.- ALOPOTI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM.

            2: AYNAL HOQUE
             S/O- LATE SAYED ALI.
            VILL.- BAHATICHAR PT.- II
             (KALAICHAR) P.S.- ALOPATI
             DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM

            VERSUS

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

            2:AMJAD ALI
             (INFORMANT)
             S/O- AYEN ALI.
            VILL.- BHATICHAR PT- II
             P.O.- MATIA P.S.- GOALPARA
             RPS DIST.- GOALPARA
            ASSAM PIN - 783125.

            3:RASHIDA BEGUM (VICTIM)
             D/O AYEN ALI
             R/O VILL.- BHAHATICHAR PT.-II
             P.O.- MATIA P.S.- GOALPARA
             RPS DIST.- GOALPARA
            ASSAM PIN- 783125

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N J DUTTA, MR. M HOQUE

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. T ISLAM (R3),MD. A HUSSAIN (R3),MR. A S
CHOUDHURY (R-2)
                                                                       Page No.# 2/6




                                  BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

                                    ORDER

Date : 09.02.2026

Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. A. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Article 227, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the FIR registered, vide Goalpara River P.S. Case No. 29/2023 under Sections 363/34 of the IPC, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The petitioners have also challenged the Charge Sheet submitted on 31.10.2024, vide Charge Sheet No. 13/2024 and the subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Special Judge No. 2, Goalpara, vide Special POCSO Case No. 99/2024.

3. The main ground of challenge to the said FIR, the charge sheet and the subsequent proceeding is that a settlement reached between the parties, i.e., the victim, the informant and the petitioners. The case was initiated with lodging of an FIR dated 16.07.2023, by which it is alleged by the brother of the victim that the victim, who was 16 years 6 months at the time of the occurrence, was proposed for marriage with the petitioner No. 1 by petitioner No. 2. However, it is stated that the respondent No. 2 rejected the said marriage proposal since the victim was minor at that juncture. But, it is also stated that Page No.# 3/6

the petitioners along with another had been seducing the victim for marriage and that the petitioner No. 2 was visiting their house frequently and that on 15.07.2023 at about 6 PM, the petitioner No. 1 conspired with the petitioner No. 2 to take away the victim to an unknown place and get the victim in a house for the entire night and that the petitioner No. 1 had raped her. It was also stated that a day later at about 6 PM with the help of other villagers, the victim was recovered.

4. The police on receipt of the Ejahar registered a case under Sections 363/34 of the IPC, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and upon completion of the investigation and having found the prima facie case established against the petitioner, submitted the charge sheet on 31.10.2024, vide Charge Sheet No. 13/2024 under Sections 363/34 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner No. 1 and under Sections 363/34 of the IPC read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner No. 2.

5. Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 25.06.2025, the informant had sworn an affidavit, stating inter alia, that out of love affair, the petitioner No. 1 and his victim sister eloped away and on getting information, they had lodged the Ejahar. He further stated that after recovery of the victim girl and on query being made, the informant girl informed him that she voluntarily eloped with the petitioner No. 1 and further that they have reached a settlement amicably in presence of the villagers and that they are not interested to proceed with the case further. Mr. Dutta has also placed the affidavit filed by the informant on 22.10.2025, wherein the brother of the victim had stated that the victim got married with another person and has been living her conjugal life peacefully with her husband and the deponent is not interested Page No.# 4/6

to proceed with the case further. Mr. Dutta also submits that the victim had herself admitted that out of love affair, she went out with the petitioner No. 1 to get married with him, but since she was a minor at that time, she was sent to her paternal house on the very next day.

6. Mr. Dutta further submits that the informant has sworn an affidavit before the Notary that the case has been amicably settled amidst the villagers and that they do not want to continue with the case any further. Mr. Dutta has placed the affidavit filed by the victim as well on 22.10.2025, in which she had stated, inter alia, that out of love relationship, she went out with the petitioner No. 1 to get married with him. But, since she was minor, she was sent back to her paternal home. She further submits that she got married with another person and was living peacefully with her husband and that she is not interested to proceed with the case further. Mr. Dutta, as such, submits that since the instant case is an offence connected to marital issue, the same may be quashed.

7. Mr. Dutta has placed the judgment delivered by the Gauhati High Court in Crl. Pet. 1030/2023 (Afsarul Islam and another vs. State of Assam), wherein this Court has quashed the criminal proceeding on a similar ground.

8. Mr. A. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that in view of the affidavit filed by the said respondent, i.e., the informant, the victim had informed the informant that she had eloped with the petitioner No.1 out of love affairs and that now she is married to another person and she is living her conjugal life peacefully and she is not interested to proceed with the case further.

Page No.# 5/6

9. Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the victim has filed an affidavit on 22.10.2025, stating, inter alia, that she had love affairs with the petitioner No.1 and out of the same, she eloped with him with the desire to get married and since she was minor, she was sent back to her paternal home. He also submits that the victim got married to another person and she is living peacefully with her husband and she is not interested to proceed with the case further.

10. Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. PP, appearing for the State, submits that the cases, which are not grave in nature or in the nature of matrimonial dispute or of any civil nature can be quashed, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the ground of settlement and more so when it is found that the said case will not reach any logical conclusion. He further submits that since the victim got married and is living her conjugal life peacefully, it will not be fair to drag her in such a case and to make her depose before the Court.

11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

12. It is no res-integra as 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 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 Page No.# 6/6

ends, if the parties reach to a settlement that they would not like to continue with the proceedings.

13. In the instant case, it is seen that both the informant and the victim have sworn an affidavit, stating inter-alia that the victim had eloped with the petitioner No. 1 with the intention to marry him as they had a love relationship and since she was a minor, the same could not be solemnised and she was dropped back to her paternal house. The informant and the victim had also sworn the affidavit, stating that the victim has got married to another person and she is living peaceful life with her husband and as such, she has no intention to continue with the criminal case against the petitioner.

14. In view of the above, this Court for the ends of justice finds it fit to quash the criminal proceeding, arising out of the FIR, registered as Goalpara River P.S. Case No. 29/2023, the Charge Sheet No. 13/2024 dated 31.10.2024, which culminated in Special POCSO Case No. 99/2024, pending before the learned Special Judge No. 2, Goalpara. This Court also quashes the FIR as well as the charge sheet.

15. The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant