Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010239972025 2025:GAU-AS:17076 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1331/2025 AZIZUR SK ALIAS AZIZUR ALI ALIAS SHADU S/O NURUL ISLAM @ NUR ISLAM R/O VILLAGE RANGAPANI (CHANDAMARI), PO BORKONA, PS MANKACHAR, DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783131 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:ANOWAR ALI MONDAL S/O LT. FOROJ ALI MONDAL R/O VILLAGE AIDOBA PO BORKONA PS MANKACHAR DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 78313 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R KHANDAKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A ROHMAN (R2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 09.12.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M. R. Khandakar for the petitioner, Azizur Sk @ Azizur Ali @ Shadu who has filed this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for quashing the proceeding of Sessions Case No. 65/2024 arising out of Mankachar P.S. Case No. 337/2023 and G.R. Case No. 792/2023 under Sections 366(A)/342/34 of IPC. 2. Heard Mr. A. Rohman, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. B. Sarma for the respondent State. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the victim eloped with the petitioner on her own volition. False allegations have been brought up against the petitioner that he had kidnapped the victim. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the victim was minor, and her consent does not absolve the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has no objection if the proceedings are quashed. 6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. I have also scrutinized the Trial Court Records and the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the C.r.P.C.. Although the victim was a minor, it appears that the victim went with the petitioner on her own volition. Moreover, an affidavit marked as Annexure-9 has been sworn in by the respondent no.2 that he has lodged the FIR against the petitioner on misunderstanding. Page No.# 3/4 7. It is further stated through the affidavit that the respondent no. 2 has no objection, if the entire proceedings of Sessions Case no. 65/2024 arising out of Mankachar P.S. Case No. 337/2023 and G.R. Case No. 792/2023 under Sections 336(A)/342/34 are set aside and quashed. 8. The petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein it has been held that:- “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider Page No.# 4/4 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.” 9. Reverting back to this case, it is held that indeed further proceedings of this case will be an abuse of the process of the Court. Possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. This is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the entire proceeding of Sessions Case no. 65/2024 arising out of Mankachar P.S. Case No. 337/2023 and G.R. Case No. 792/2023, is hereby set aside and quashed. 11. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant