Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010245332019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1198/2019 RUPAM MALI S/O- RAMESH MALI, R/O- RANGAMATI, P.S-PALASHBARI, DIST- KAMRUP , ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SAMBHU KALITA S/O- LATE BHAGAWAN KALITA VILL- AGRICULTURE COLONY NEAR DIPHU POLICE RESERVE P.S- DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 3:UPASANA KALITA D/O- SAMBHU KALITA PRESENT ADDRESS W/O- SRI RUPAM MALI R/O- RANGAMATI P.S- PALASHBARI DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PERMANENT R/O- VILL- AGRICULTURE COLONY NEAR DIPHU POLICE RESERVE P.S- DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MS P TOKBIPI,MS. A Y SUMI,MS V.SHOHE,MR. N K MURRY,MR. A AHMED,MR I U CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, J U AHMED (R-2,3),MR R L CHUTIA,MR J P KACHARI Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 23.03.2026 Heard Mr. N.K. Murry, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State and Mr. Deka appearing on behalf of Mr. J. U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3. 2. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 13.10.2016 and criminal proceeding arising out of the said FIR. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Murry, learned counsel for the petitioner that an FIR has been lodged against the present petitioner by the informant/respondent No.2 with an allegation that his minor daughter has been kidnapped by the present petitioner from their lawful custody. Accordingly, the case was registered vide Diphu Police Station Case No. 220/16 under Section 366(A) of IPC corresponding to GR Case No.887/16. However, during the investigation the charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner registered under Section 363 of IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 4. The case is presently at the stage of charge hearing, however as the stay order is operating, the case still at the stage of framing of charge. 5. Mr. Murry, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the FIR was lodged on 13.10.2016 and the incident occurred on 11.10.2016 and admittedly at the time of lodging the FIR the victim was 15 years 6 months as her date of birth is 26.04.2001. However, there is no such incident of sexual Page No.# 3/8 assault has taken place at the relevant point of time but it is a fact that the victim eloped with the accused out of love affairs and thereafter they also got married on 25.06.2019 and at the relevant time of their marriage the victim/respondent No.3 was more than 18 years 2 months. One child is also born out of their wed-lock on 12.10.2020 and at present both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 are residing happily as a husband and wife. 6. He further submitted that the several High Court have already taken a view that the age of the victim in case of POCSO should be reduced to 16 years as now a days the most of the victim as well as the child above 16 years gained his sufficient maturity to take a decision. 7. He also relied on several Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court wherein it has been considered that the High Court should liberally invoked the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C specially in case of matrimonial matters wherein, both the parties are residing happily out of their marriage. He further submitted that the present case although the case is registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act but at the relevant time of incident there is no such allegation except the allegation of kidnapping was brought against the present petitioner. He further submitted that as both the respondent No.3 and the accused petitioner are residing happily as a husband and wife, the future prospects of the child born out of their wed lock as well as the future prospects of the victim and the accused should be considered wherein only out of love and affairs they have eloped with each other and they got married. 8. Mr. Murry, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as the accused and the respondent No.3 already got married with each other and living happily as a husband and wife there is no chance that the respondent No.3 would deposed against the petitioner if case is proceeded and in that event it Page No.# 4/8 will be a futile exercise of the Court. 9. Considering all these circumstances of this case and the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court the prayer for quashing of the present petition may be considered at this stage. 10. Mr. Murry, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that both the victim and the informant i.e. the respondent No.3 and 2 respectively have filed their affidavit in the present case wherein it is categorically stated by the informant that only out of some misunderstanding the case was lodged against the petitioner but at present after their marriage has been solemonized, both the victim/respondent No.3 as well as the petitioner are residing happily as a husband and wife and hence considering this aspect of the case the prayer for quashing may be considered by invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C by this Court. The following Judgments have relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner:- i) 1992 Supp1 SCC 335 ii) 1960 0 Supreme(SC) 94 iii) 2017 9 SCC 641 iv) (2003) 4 SCC 675 v) 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 16 vi) (2008) 9 SCC 677 vii) (2008) 16 SCC 1 viii) (2013) 4 SCC 58 ix) 2014 6 SCC 466 x) 2013 9 SCC 293 xi) Crl. O.P. No. 232 of 2021 and Crl.M.P. No. 109 of 2021 xii) Crl.Petn.No.22 of 2022 11. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State has submitted that the occurrence took place on 11.10.2016 and admittedly the date of birth of the victim is 26.04.2021 and thus she was a Page No.# 5/8 minor at the relevant time of the incident. 12. From her statement as well as from the medical evidence also it is seen that there was a physical contact between the parties and during the medical examination the hymen of the victim was also found absent which otherwise suggest that there was a sexual relationship between the parties at the time of filing the charge-sheet or during the investigation. 13. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that during the enquiry also the petitioner has not co-operating with the investigation and for which he was declared as an absconder in the case. He further submitted that this is a heinous offence, wherein the power of Section 482 of Cr.P.C should be exercised sparingly. This is not a case of matrimonial dispute wherein allegation of sexual assault has been brought against a minor girl. Mr. Sarma accordingly submitted that this is not the case for quashing of the proceeding by invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. Mr. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the informant and the victim that is the respondent No.2 and 3 respectively has submitted that presently both the petitioner and the respondent No.3 are happily residing as husband and wife and they have a minor child and hence considering this aspect of the case both the respondent No.2 and 3 has no objection if the criminal proceeding is quashed against the present petitioner. 15. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, and also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition. 16. It is the admitted position that at the relevant time of incident, the victim was a minor while it was alleged that she was kidnapped by the accused Page No.# 6/8 petitioner. Accordingly, the case was also registered under Section 366 A of IPC, but during the inquiry, the case is also charge-sheeted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. But in the same time, it is also cannot be denied that presently the petitioner and the victim, respondent nO.3 are staying together as a husband and wife. And they are also blessed with a child, who born in the year 2020. From the available materials, it also reveals that at the time of their marriage, the victim was more than 18 years and after solemonization of their marriage, they are staying together as a husband and wife. The informant/the father of the victim also appeared as a respondent No.2 and both the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.3 also filed their affidavit in opposition, wherein they have stated that due to some misunderstanding, the FIR was lodged and at present there is no dispute between the parties and the respondent Jo.2 who is the father of the victim/informant of this case also have no grievances against the present petitioner. To that effect they sworn the affidavit and stated that they have no objection if the entire criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner is quashed and set aside. 17. It is a fact that the allegation brought against the present petitioner, is a serious allegation and as per the allegation not only she was kidnapped but also had sexual assault on her while she was a minor. But at the same time, it also cannot be denied at presently both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 are staying together as a husband and wife, and one child is also born out of their wed-lock. 18. In these circumstances, even if the case is allowed to be proceeded further, there is no chance of adducing evidence against the present petitioner, neither by the respondent No2 nor by the respondent No.3, who are the vital witnesses of the prosecution. Thus, the chances of conviction are very bleak Page No.# 7/8 even if the case is preceded further, rather, it will be an abuse of the process of the Court. 19. In paragraph 18 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reported in 2008 16 SCC 1 (Manoj Sharma Vs State and Ors) it has been observed by the Court relying on the earlier decision passed in the case of State of Karnataka Vs L. Maniswamy that the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can quashed the criminal proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so required, where there would be almost be no chance of conviction. In that case no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceeding to continue. 20. In case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra) reported vide (2013) 4 SCC 58 (Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors Vs Babita Raghuvanshi Vs Anr.) in paragraph 12 of the said Judgment had expressed the view that if for the purpose of securing ends of justice, quashing of FIR become necessary, Section 320 of IPC would not be a bar to exercise of power of quashing. 21. In case of Kapil Gupta Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1108 it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “it is further to be noted that since the respondent No.2 herself is not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal, if the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.” 22. In the instant case also it is seen that though they initially the FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 with the allegation of kidnapping against the present petitioner but subsequently both the parties entered into a marriage Page No.# 8/8 and their marriage was accordingly solemnized and one child is also born out of the wed-lock. It is also seen that at the time of their marriage the victim was more than 18 years of age and at this stage they are happily residing as a husband and wife. Thus, if the case is allowed to be proceeded in this case or in the event any conviction is there against the present petitioner, the victim who is presently the wife of the petitioner will be more victimised as one child is also born out of their wed-lock. In the same time, it is also seen that there is no chance of conviction and as the matter has already been settled between the parties and it is unlikely that the informant or the victim will depose against the accused petitioner and in that event allowing the proceeding to continue before the learned Trial Court below, will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 23. In view of the above and also considering the view expressed by the Apex Court in laws referred to herein above as well as for the ends of justice I am of the considered view that this is a fit case wherein extra ordinary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the criminal proceeding pending against the accused petitioner. 24. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands allowed. 25. The FIR registered vide Diphu Police Station Case No. 220/16 under Section 366(A) of IPC, the charge-sheet, and the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu against the present petitioner is hereby stands set aside and quashed. 26. In terms of the above, the criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant