Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010143032026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1007/2026 ALEFIL ISLAM ALIAS ALIUL RAHMAN SON OF AJIYER RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJABALA CHOTO PATAKATA, P.S. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, DISTRICT SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MORIOM BEGUM WIFE OF BHARUL SHEIKH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATDANGA SATDUBI PART II CHARCHENDAMARI P.S. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR DISTRICT SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, MR A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A SHARMA (R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 02.09.2026 Heard Mr. F. Haque, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. A. Sharma, learned Counsel for the informant. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Special POCSO Case No. 256/2024 under Section 447/376(3) of IPC Read/With Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which is pending before the special Judge (POCSO), South Salmara, Mankachar. The quashing of the said case has been prayed for by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the ground of settlement being reached between the petitioner and respondent no.2. 3. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was lodged on 27.01.2023 by the mother of the victim stating inter alia that on 25.01.2023 at around 02:00 pm, the petitioner entered into her residence and asked his daughter to give him some water and when his daughter gave him water, the petitioner went inside the room and forcefully raped the daughter of the victim against her will. It is also stated that the victim screamed and the aunt of the victim came and rescued her. On receipt of the ejahar, the police registered the case as South Salmara, Mankachar Police Station Case No. 27/2023 under Section 447/376(3) of IPC Read/With Section 4 of the POCSO Act. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet on 27.06.2023 arraying the petitioner as an accused person under the same provisions of law. Page No.# 3/5 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an affidavit has been sworn by the mother of the victim on 13.07.2026 stating inter alia that due to the misunderstanding and the heat of the moment, she lodged the FIR against the petitioner. 5. The learned Counsel for the informant has stated that the affidavit has been sworn by the informant on 13.07.2026. It is seen that in the said affidavit, the informant had specifically stated that after lodging of the FIR, they had a discussion and it was decided voluntarily by all the parties to settle the dispute between them and that the petitioner and the victim are married and that they are enjoying their conjugal life happily without any dispute. The informant stated that she lodged the FIR on the threatening being given by her daughter, but that now they have buried the hachet and had married each other and that they are living peacefully as husband and wife. 6. It is a settled position of law that the High Court in its inherent jurisdiction can quash cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, which are personal in nature on the basis of settlement reached between the parties. In the instant case, it is seen that the parties have entered into an settlement and the informant of the case has sworn in an affidavit stating that both the petitioner and the victim are married and they are staying as husband and wife. 7. The learned Counsel for the informant supports the said affidavit filed by the informant. He also makes a oral submission that petitioner and victim are married with each other as on date. It is seen that although provisions under the POCSO Act is involved, but it is also noticed that in view of the affidavit Page No.# 4/5 sworn in by the informant as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, more so that the petitioner and the victim are married, there will be no purpose for holding any trial. In Parbatbhai Aaahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Vs. State of Gujarat Reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, it has been held as under: "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 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.” 8. As such this Court deems it fit to quash the special POCSO case registered against the petitioner being POCSO Case No. 256/2024 which is pending before the Special Judge, (POCSO) South Salmara, Mankachar along with the subsequent orders passed there in if any. The SSM P.S. Case No. 27/23 also stands quashed. Page No.# 5/5 9. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant