Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010217712025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1214/2025 IKBAL ALI AND 3 ORS. SON OF ARSHAD ALI, VILLAGE - SARDARGAON, P.O. MADARTOLI, P.S. DABOKA, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM. PIN 782440 2: ARSHAD ALI SON OF LATE RASHAN ALI VILLAGE - SARDARGAON P.O. MADARTOLI P.S. DABOKA DIST. HOJAI ASSAM. PIN 782440 3: ABDUL KADIR SON OF MAHAMMAD ALI VILLAGE - MADARTOLI MIKIR GAON P.O. MADARTOLI P.S. DABOKA DIST. HOJAI ASSAM. PIN 782440 4: SUHANA BEGUM WIFE OF IKBAL ALI VILLAGE - SARDARGAON P.O. MADARTOLI P.S. DABOKA DIST. HOJAI ASSAM. PIN 78244 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:TAHIR ALI Page No.# 2/6 SON OF LATE MONIR UDDIN VILLAGE - MADARTOLI MIKIR GAON P.O. MADARTOLI P.S. DABOKA DIST. HOJAI ASSAM. PIN - 78244 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR M Z RAHMAN,MR. K I MAZUMDER,MR J ABEDIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR N SARMA (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 04.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.R.A Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel appears for the opposite party no.2. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Ikbal Ali, 2. Arshad Ali, 3. Abdul Kadir and 4. Suhana Begum, praying for quashing of proceedings of Special POCSO Case No.131/2023. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no.1, 2 and 3 are the accused whereas the petitioner no.4 is the victim of this case. 4. It is also submitted that petitioner no.3 and 4 is the wife of the petitioner Page No.# 3/6 no.1 and no case has been made out against the petitioner 1, 2 and 3 as the victim girl was a major at the time of her marriage to petitioner no.1. 5. The brief facts of the case are that on 05/02/2023, the complainant, namely, Tahir Ali, S/o. Late Monir Uddin informed the police in writing that one Abdul Kadir of Modertoli Mikir Gaon gave his daughter Suhana Begum, aged 17 years 8 months marriage with one Ikbal Ali of Sardargaon. Upon receiving the information, a case vide Daboka PS Case No. 48/23, under Sections 9/10/11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act read with Sections 4/17 of POCSO Act was registered and investigation started. During investigation, though the victim furnished the Marriage Certificate but learning that the victim Suhana Begum, at minor age, eloped with Ikbal Ali and got married, as per suggestion of the higher authority of the police station, submitted the Charge Sheet u/s. 9/10/11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act read with Sections 6/17 of POCSO Act. 6. The Birth Certificate of the victim/petitioner no.4 has been furnished wherefrom it appears that her Date of Birth is 30.12.2002 and therefore, the said victim had attained majority as on 30.12.2020. The FIR was lodged on 05.02.2023 but no date of occurrence has been mentioned. 7. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is no way connected with the said marriage. He is a VDP Member of the village Madartoli Mikir Gaon, Daboka. The opposite party could not have lodged the instant FIR. The Govt. of Assam issued a Notification dated 05.02.2023, whereby, Gaon Panchayat Secretaries Page No.# 4/6 were designated as Child prohibition Officers. Thus, the opposite party no. 2 being a VDP Member was not authorized to lodge the said FIR. Moreover, the concerned police authority also could not have acted upon such FIR but in the instant case it is apparent that the concerned police authority acted so promptly that no time to produce the marriage certificate was provided. 8. Be that as it may, it appears that the victim had attained majority before the FIR was lodged and since the date of occurrence is not mentioned, there is no material to show that the victim was a minor at the time of occurrence. 9. The instant petition has been jointly preferred by the accused persons as well as the alleged victim and it is submitted that the petitioner nos.1 & 4 are happily married and living peacefully together without any dispute. 10. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, 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.” 11. Further, in the case of Narender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Page No.# 5/6 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 (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.” 12. Here in the instant case, it is seen that though the allegation brought against the accused/petitioner is of serious nature, but both the accused and the victim already got married and they are living peacefully together as husband and wife and hence, it can be held that the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak as it is unlikely that the petitioner No. 3, i.e. the victim, will depose against the accused/petitioners No. 1 & 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. 13. In view of above, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met 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 Page No.# 6/6 the proceeding pending before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Hojai. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The F.I.R. of Daboka PS Case No. 48/23, under Sections 9/10/11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act read with Sections 4/17 of POCSO Act as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in Special POCSO Case No.131/2023 pending before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Hojai stand set aside and quashed. 14. In terms of the above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant