Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010209052024 2025:GAU-AS:2882 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1241/2024 MAYARUN NESSA AND 2 ORS W/O HAIDAR HUSSAIN D/O MATIUR RAHMAN SISTER OF SAYNUL HOQUE R/O VILL- GANDHARAJBARI P.O. AND P.S. RATABARI DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM PIN-788735 2: HAIDAR HUSSAIN @ MONI S/O LATE ABUL HUSSAIN @ (CHUPAN) R/O VILL- GANDHARAJBARI P.O. AND P.S. RATABARI DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788735 3: SAYNUL HOQUE S/O MOTIUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- KALAPANI P.O. AND P.S. RATABARI DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-78873 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE RATABARI POLICE STATION Page No.# 2/7 P.O. AND P.S. RATABARI DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788735 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R TALUKDAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 18.03.2025 Heard Mr. A. R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the F.I.R. of Ratabari P.S. Case No. 130/2016, under Sections 366(A) of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1108/2016; Charge-Sheet No. 14/2017; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in Special Sessions Case No. 194/2023, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj. Page No.# 3/7 3. It is submitted by Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the present petition has been filed jointly by the victim, accused and informant as petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3, respectively. He further submitted that after the alleged incident, both the family members of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 had gave consent for their marriage and accordingly their marriage was solemnized on 20.06.2016 and the matter was settled between the parties after 7/8 days of the lodging of F.I.R. Both the petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 are residing happily as wife and husband for last 8/9 years and 2 (two) children are also born out of their wedlock. He further submitted that soon after the compromise/ settlement of the matter, both the parties also approached the Officer-In-Charge, Ratabari Police Station with an application stating that the matter has already been settled and compromised between the parties, but as the case was registered under the non-bailable Section of law, it was not considered and the case was subsequently charge-sheeted against the present accused/petitioner No. 2. He further submitted that at the time of filing of the F.I.R., the victim was more than 17 years of age and there was no allegation of sexual assault on the victim. However, after the lodging of the F.I.R., the matter was compromised within 7/8 days and accordingly both the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 got married and at present, they are residing happily as husband and wife. He further submitted that since the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3, i.e. the victim and the informant, respectively, are not interested to proceed with the case further and in that event, the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak even if the case is allowed to be proceeded further. Rather, it will be an abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, he submitted that it is a fit case wherein the entire criminal proceeding, including Page No.# 4/7 the F.I.R. and the Charge-Sheet, may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of BNSS. 4. In support of his submission, Mr. Talukdar also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. 5. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that though there may be a settlement/compromise between the parties or admittedly both the accused and the victim may got married or residing as husband and wife happily, but it is an admitted fact that at the relevant time of incident, the girl was minor and accordingly the case was registered under the POCSO Act. Accordingly, he submitted that considering the nature of allegation brought against the accused/petitioner, the matter cannot be compromised and thus, the F.I.R., Charge-Sheet and the criminal proceeding cannot be set aside or quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. However, both the parties may approach the learned Trial Court below and at the time of framing charge or adducing evidence, the materials can be brought before the learned Trial Court below and in that case, it may be a case of acquittal, but it cannot be a case for quashing and accordingly, Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, raised objection in allowing the criminal petition. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the materials available on record and it is seen that the present petition is jointly preferred by the victim, accused and informant as petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3, respectively. It also appears that they have resolved their dispute amicably and both the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 got married and they Page No.# 5/7 are now living peacefully together as husband and wife and they have 2 (two) children out of their wedlock. 7. In the case of Gian Singh (supra), as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that “the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. Further, in the case of Narender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and when the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal cases would be futile, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the criminal proceeding in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court in non-compoundable cases, when the complainant does not want to continue with their own case after their settlement outside the Court. It is further held that “when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:- (i) ends of justice, or Page No.# 6/7 (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.” 9. Here in the instant case, it is seen that though the allegation brought against the accused/petitioner is of heinous in nature, but the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and both the accused and the victim got married and they are now living peacefully together as husband and wife along with their children and hence, it can be held that the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak as it is unlikely that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3, i.e. the victim and the informant, respectively, will depose against the accused/petitioner No. 2, and in that event allowing the proceeding to continue before the learned Court below would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 10. In view of above and also considering the future of the children of the accused and the victim, who are husband and wife, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be meted out if the petition is allowed. Therefore, I find that this is fit case where the extra-ordinary power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 can be invoked to quash the proceeding pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The F.I.R. of Ratabari P.S. Case No. 130/2016, under Sections 366(A) of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1108/2016; Charge-Sheet No. 14/2017; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in Special Sessions Case No. 194/2023, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj, stand set aside and quashed. Page No.# 7/7 11. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant