Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010206552025 2025:GAU-AS:16398 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1145/2025 FARIDUL ALI ALIAS F HOQUE S/O TAJAMIL HOQUE R/O VILL- BINYACHARA P.O. CHITHILA P.S. FAKIRAGRAM DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:ANSAR ALI S/O LATE ABDUL MAGID R/O VILL- BOGORIGAON P.O. SORBHOG P.S. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781317 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S C DAS, B SARKAR,D R BONGSHIARY,MR. C. SHIL,P BURAGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM (R1), MR. M ALOM (R2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 01.12.2025 Heard Ms. P. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. M. Alom, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing criminal proceeding against the petitioner in PRC Case No. 727/2020 (corresponding to GR Case No. 3306/2020), pending before the learned CJM, Barpeta and stated to the at the stage of appearance. 3. The father of the alleged victim girl had lodged an FIR dated 23.07.2020 before the Sorbhog police station with the allegation that 20.07.2020, in the afternoon, the named accused kidnapped his minor daughter aged 16 years. The case was registered as Sorbhog P.S. case No. 130/2020 under Section 366 (A) IPC. The investigation resulted in a charge sheet against the accused under Section 366 (A) and pending before the learned Additional CJM, Barpta. 4. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the respondent No. 2/informant entered appeared through learned counsel and filed an affidavit supporting the prayer of the petitioner. 5. It is stated and submitted on behalf of the petitioner’s side that the petitioner and the alleged victim had a love relationship. Though, at that time, she did not attain majority and that later, after attaining the age of Page No.# 3/4 majority, their marriage was solemnized and at present they have also a child, stated to be aged about six months. In these circumstances, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that perhaps the statement of the victim recorded during investigation, may be perused which is not available in the scanned TCR. 7. The learned counsel for the informant supporting the petitioner by filing an affidavit and does not dispute the contention of the petitioner’s side. In para Nos. 3 and 6 of the affidavit, the informant has stated that in the mean time, his daughter, after becoming major was given in marriage to the petitioner and they are leading a peaceful conjugal life and a child was also born to them and presently aged ten months. He has also annexed copies of the marriage certificate dated 10.01.2024 solemnized under the Mislim law and also a copy of birth certificate dated 04.01.2025 regarding the child. It is specifically stated in para 6 that the informant is not inclined to pursue this case and therefore, come before this Court with this affidavit. 8. I have considered the materials and the submissions of both the sides. At the time of the alleged incident, the girl was admitted a minor and penal provision of given was Section 366A IPC which criminalizes the act of kidnapping a minor to force into illicit relationship. The charge sheet has also filed under the same section. 9. Despite the aforesaid circumstances, being on the serious side, it cannot also be overlooked that the alleged incident took place in the Page No.# 4/4 context of relationship/love affair between the accused and the victim. The subsequent and present developments about the petitioner and the girl getting married upon her majority and leading a peaceful conjugal life along with a child aged about 6 months cannot be overlooked 10. In the given facts and circumstances, allowing the prosecution to proceed apart – from being an exercise in futility may not also be in the best interest of family, especially the child. 11. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the above discussion, the proceedings in PRC Case No. 727/2020 (corresponding to GR Case No. 3306/2020), pending before the learned CJM, Barpeta, against the petitioner, stands quashed. 12. The criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant