Criminal Petition No. 1550 of 2024 Page 1 GAHC010269282024 2025:GAU-AS:7732 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Criminal Petition No. 1550/2024 1. Md. Azhar Uddin, S/o-Md. Mohibur Rahman, R/o Village- Borhula, Donki Pather, P.O. Jugijan Bazar, P.S. Hojai, Dist.Hojai, Assam, PIN-782429. 2. Abdul Ali, S/o-Late Ashadra Ali, R/o Village- Hojai, P.O. Jugijan Bazar, Dist.Hojai, Assam, PIN-782429. …..Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Assam. .....Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.Alom, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. K.Baishya, Additional Public Prosecutor. Date of Hearing : 09.06.2025. Page 2 of 8 Criminal Petition No. 1550 of 2024 Page 2 Date of Judgment : 11.06.2025. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) 1. Heard Mr. S. Alom, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been jointly filed by the petitioner No. 1, namely, Md. Azhar Uddin, who is the accused in PRC Case No. 862/2024, along with the petitioner No. 2, namely, Md. Abdul Ali, who is the informant of the said case, praying for quashing of the proceedings of PRC Case No. 862/2024, arising out of Hojai P.S. Case No. 407/2023. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are that: - i. The petitioner No. 2, Abdul Ali had lodged an FIR before the In-Charge of Jugijan Police Patrolling Post under Hojai Police Station on 14.09.2023 inter alia, alleging that the accused persons named in the FIR namely, Md. Azhar Uddin (petitioner No. 1 Criminal Petition No. 1550 of 2024 Page 3 herein) and Md. Kapil Uddin had taken away his daughter by giving her false promise of marriage. ii. It is also stated in the FIR that on 09.09.2023, the accused No. 2 named in the FIR, went to the house of the informant (petitioner No. 2) with a proposal of marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with the daughter of the informant. However, the said proposal was rejected. iii. On receipt of the said FIR, Hojai P.S. Case No. 407/2023 was registered under Sections 363/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioner No. 1 Md. Azhar Uddin under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. iv. Another accused, namely, Md. Kapil Uddin was not sent up for trial. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was a love affair between the daughter of the informant and the petitioner No. 1 and she has voluntarily eloped with the petitioner No. 1. Page 4 of 8 Criminal Petition No. 1550 of 2024 Page 4 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and to that effect a compromise deed dated 24.09.2023 was also executed before the elderly people of the village. 6. It was agreed that the petitioner No. 1 would marry the daughter of the petitioner No. 2. Accordingly, on 08.02.2025, the marriage between the daughter of the petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized and presently, both of them are residing as couple. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as the petitioner No. 1 and the daughter of the petitioner No. 2 are now living a happy conjugal life, under the above-mentioned circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings of the PRC Case No. 862/2024 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hojai would be a futile exercise and it would not serve the ends of justice. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that though an offence under Section 376 is a non-compoundable offence, however, under the circumstances as existing in the instant case, this Court has power to quash the proceedings of the same PRC case in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Criminal Petition No. 1550 of 2024 Page 5 9. In support of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Narinder Singh & Ors vs. State Of Punjab & Anr” reported in “(2014) 6 SCC 466”. 10. He has also cited the ruling of Apex Court in the case of “Kapil Gupta versus State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.” reported in “(2022) 8 Supreme 341”. He has also cited some of the rulings of this Court in which the proceedings were quashed under similar circumstances. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. Baishya has submitted that the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of BNS, 2023 is not available in the case record. 12. He has submitted that though the offence involved in this case i.e. (under Section 366 Indian Penal Code, 1860) is a non- compoundable offence, however, he fairly submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, where the victim girl is presently residing with the petitioner No. 1 as his wife, there is a bleak possibility of the case ending in conviction. 13. The Apex Court has observed in the case of “Narinder Singh & Ors vs. State Of Punjab & Anr” (supra) is as follows:- “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the Criminal Petition No. 1550 of 2024 Page 6 High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. 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 (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. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under Criminal Petition No. 1550 of 2024 Page 7 special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” 14. In the instant case, though the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a non-compoundable offence and is an offence of serious nature, hence, normally Court should not exercise its power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash the proceeding, however, it appears that in the instant case, there was a love affair between the petitioner No. 1 and the daughter of the petitioner No. 2 and now, they are happily married couple. Page 8 of 8 Criminal Petition No. 1550 of 2024 Page 8 15. Further, the informant of the case, who is also a joint petitioner in this case, has also prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is bleak possibly of the case ending in conviction and the continuation of the proceedings of PRC Case No. 862/2024 will not only result into grave oppression and harassment for the petitioner No. 1, but also to the daughter of the petitioner No. 2, who is his wife. 17. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that unless the Court exercises its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash the aforesaid proceeding, grave injustice and oppression would be caused to the victim also. Hence, for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the proceedings of PRC Case No. 862/2024, arising out of Hojai P.S. Case No. 407/2023, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hojai is hereby quashed. 18. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court immediately. JUDGE Comparing Assistant