Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010028642025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./156/2025 SIRAJ UDDIN AND ORS S/O SOMEJUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORGHOLA PART I, PS JOGIGHOPA, DIST BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 783388 2: SOMEJUDDIN S/O LATE GATU SK. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORGHOLA PART I PS JOGIGHOPA DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783388 3: KODBHANU BEGUM D/O KOBEJUDDIN ALI W/O SIRAJ UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORGHOLA PART I PS JOGIGHOPA DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 78338 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Z AHMED, MR. A KHALEK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 20.03.2025 Heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the F.I.R. of Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 32/2023, under Section 6 of POCSO Act read with Section 9/10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act; Charge- Sheet No. 60/2023, dated 30.03.2023; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in Special(P) Case No. 109(J)/2023, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, North Salmara, Abhayapuri. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the present petition has been filed jointly by the accused and victim as petitioner Nos. 1 & 3, respectively, and the petitioner No. 2 is the father of the accused/petitioner No. 1. He further submitted that both the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3, i.e. the accused and victim, respectively, already got married with each other and they are happily residing as husband and wife and one child is also born out of their wedlock in the year 2023. But, after their marriage, the present F.I.R. was lodged by one unknown person with some false and concocted allegation. More so, the informant is also not known to both the victim as well as the accused. Hence, he submitted that since the accused and the victim are husband and wife and the victim is not interested to proceed with the case and in that event, the chance of conviction is very remote and bleak even if the case Page No.# 3/6 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 the F.I.R. and the Charge-Sheet, may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of BNSS. 4. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that though the informant of this case is not known to the accused and the victim and both may got married or residing as husband and wife happily, but admittedly the case is registered under the POCSO Act. Accordingly, he submitted that considering the nature of allegation brought against the accused/petitioner, 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, 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. 5. 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 accused and the victim as petitioner Nos. 1 & 3, respectively, and the petitioner No. 2 is the father of the accused/petitioner No. 1. It also appears that though a case has been registered against the present accused/petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by one Bhoirab Sen, who is stated to be not known to the present Page No.# 4/6 accused/petitioners and the victim/petitioner, but the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 are husband and wife and they are living peacefully together without any dispute along with their child as well as the accused/petitioner No. 2. 6. In the case of Gian Singh (supra), 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.” 7. 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.# 5/6 (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.” 8. Here in the instant case, it is seen that though the allegation brought against the accused/petitioner is of heinous in nature, but the both the accused and the victim already got married and they are living peacefully together as husband and wife along with their child 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. 9. In view of above and also considering the future of the child 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 Special Judge, North Salmara, Abhayapuri. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The F.I.R. of Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 32/2023, under Section 6 of POCSO Act read with Section 9/10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act; Charge-Sheet No. 60/2023, dated 30.03.2023; as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding in Special(P) Case No. 109(J)/2023, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, North Salmara, Abhayapuri, stand set aside and quashed. Page No.# 6/6 10. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant