Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010084182024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./494/2024 MRINAL HOQUE @ NABIJUR RAHMAN S/O MOJOR ALI VILL- HARIARKUTI P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN-783331 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MASUA KHATUN C/O ASGAR ALI VILL- KHUDIMARI PT.I P.O. KHUDIMARI P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR. A Z AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. M HUSSAIN (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 07.04.2025 Heard Mr. A Z Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the further proceeding of Special Case No. 86/2024 arising out of Gauripur P.S. Case No. 122/2021 pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri. A 15 (fifteen) year old girl was to be married to a person called Mafidul Hoque. The marriage was settled by both the families. On 23.01.2021, the girl went to the house of Mafidul Haque and then he committed rape upon her. In the meantime, the present petitioner being a friend of Mafidul Haque arrived there and he also committed rape upon her. While the petitioner was committing the aforesaid acts, the mother of Mafidul Haque entered into the room and witnesses everything. She raised hue and cry on seeing the aforesaid incident. The present petitioner ran away immediately. After that, the President of the Local Gaon Panchayat handed over the girl to Police. She has also alleged that while the petitioner was committing rape upon the girl, the aforesaid Mafidul Haque had videographed the entire incident and uploaded in facebook. The victim girl gave her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC narrating the said facts. On conclusion of investigation, Police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner only under Section 376(DA) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It may be stated that before filing of the charge sheet, on 15.03.2021, the victim girl had sworn an affidavit stating that she had mutually settled her case against the present petitioner. Today, Mr. M. Hussain, who is appearing for the victim girl has stated that the girl is not interested in prosecution the case. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. Page No.# 3/4 The Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. Page No.# 4/4 (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Reverting to the case in hand, on a plain reading of the FIR and the statement of the victim girl, it appears that if the mother of Mafidul Haque did not raise hue and cry over the incident, the victim herself would not have raise any hue and cry. It goes to show that the victim girl was a consenting party to the act of the petitioner. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction in future and allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of process of the court. This is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. For the aforesaid premised reasons, the Special Case No. 86/2024 arising out of Gauripur P.S. Case No. 122/2021 pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri is quashed and set aside. The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant