Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010009982026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./78/2026 RASHIDUL ISLAM ALIAS MD RASHIDUL AND ANR S/O NUR MOHAMMAD, R/O VILL GASBARI CHENGURCHAR, PO PURAN DIARA,PS MANKACHAR, DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783135 2: SHONUFA BEGUM ALIAS SHUNUFA BEGUM W/O RASHIDUL ISLAM ALIAS MD RASHIDUL R/O VILL GASBARI CHENGURCHAR PO PURAN DIARA PS MANKACHAR DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 78313 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:NAYEB ALI S/O LATE ZOBED ALI R/O VILL GASBARI KATHALBARI PO PURAN DIARA PS MANKACHAR DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 78313 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R KHANDAKAR, MR. A ROHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR ROBIUL HOQUE(R2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 15.05.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M. R. Khandakar for the petitioners. 2. Also heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. S. H. Bora for the respondent State and learned counsel Mr. R. Hoque for the respondent No. 2. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 is a 3rd party/alien to the case and he was the VDP Secretary and he lodged the FIR with certain allegations against the petitioners 'X' and 'Y'. The petitioners 'X' and 'Y' are spouses and they have jointly filed this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for quashing the proceedings of Special (P) Case No. 243/2024 arising out of Mankachar P.S. Case No. 73/2023 under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act R/W Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act. 4. The petitioner No. 1 'X' was arrayed as an accused and the petitioner No. 2 'Y' was the victim mentioned in the FIR. The FIR unfolds that the petitioner No. 1 'X' married a young girl who was only 17 years old and was below the permissible age of marriage. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised objection stating that this case is registered under Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act which is a serious offence and quashing of a case of such nature is uncalled for. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has however raised no objection against the prayer of quashing the entire proceedings of Special (P) Case Page No.# 3/4 No. 243/2024. 7. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 8. Both the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are spouses. They are staying together as husband and wife. They are peacefully leading their married life. 9. I have considered the submission that now the petitioner No. 2 'Y' has attained majority. She was a minor in the year, 2023 and was at the verge of attaining majority. Moreover, possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. 10. Thereby, further proceedings will indeed be an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. I have considered the submission that both the petitioners are blessed with a 2 year old daughter. Thereby, continuing such prosecution will be detrimental to the interest of the child and the victim herself. 12. I have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors Vs. The State of Punjab & Anr reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it has been held that:- “29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” Page No.# 4/4 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the proceedings of Special (P) Case No. 243/2024 arising out of Mankachar P.S. Case No. 73/2023 under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act R/W Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act, pending before the learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar is set aside and quashed. 14. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant