Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010279852024 2026:GAU-AS:8618 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./28/2025 MD. NUR MAHAMMAD @ NUR MUHAMMAD S/O- ABDUL BARIK, VILL- FURHANIATI, P.O.- LETERIPAR BAZZAR, P.S. JURIA, DISTRICT- NAGAON (ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY P.P., ASSAM 2:ASMA BEGUM W/O- MAINUL HOQUE VILL- FURHANIATI P.O.- LETERIPAR BAZZAR P.S. JURIA DISTRICT- NAGAON (ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M DEKA(R2),MR. N MAHAJAN, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) Page No.# 2/7 -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 16.06.2026 Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondents and Ms M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and Mr. N. Mahajan, who was earlier appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the respondent no.2/informant. 2. This petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the proceedings in Special POCSO Case No.137/2022, pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions No. 1-cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Nagaon, Assam. 3. The mother of the victim lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioner had kidnapped her minor daughter, who was aged about 15 years at that time and thereafter, established physical relationship with her and subsequently, the victim was recovered and it was promised that the petitioner would marry the victim when she attained the age of majority. Subsequently, however, the petitioner failed to solemnize marriage with the victim, which led to the informant lodging the FIR of the instant case. 4. The case was investigated and ultimately, charge-sheet was submitted and after framing of charge, under Sections 366(A)/376 IPC R/W Section 4 POCSO Act, trial had commenced and it was after the commencement of the trial that the petitioner solemnized marriage with the victim on 15.03.2024 by which date the victim Page No.# 3/7 had attained majority. 5. Subsequently, a child was also born to the couple. 6. This Court vide order dated 03.06.2026 had stayed the further proceeding in the aforesaid trial. 7. A joint affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and the victim of the case, wherein, it is stated that the FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim upon the bona fide belief that her minor daughter was kidnapped by the petitioner. It is further stated at para-5 of the joint affidavit that they were involved in a romantic relationship and the victim had voluntarily eloped with the accused. But the fact that the victim was a minor girl prevented the marriage being legally solemnized between the petitioner and the victim, thereby causing a misunderstanding between the mother of the victim and the petitioner which subsequently resulted in the Special POCSO Case No. 137/2022 pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Nagaon, Assam arising out of Juria P.S. Case No. 237/2022. 8. It is further stated that as soon as the victim attained majority, they solemnized their marriage and in this regard, marriage Registration Certificate No.704/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrar, Buraburi, Morigaon, Assam has been annexed to the joint affidavit. 9. It is further stated that in course of their conjugal life, a child was born to them and they are presently leading a happy family life and having regard to their future, it is prayed that the criminal Page No.# 4/7 proceedings in question be quashed. 10. In support of the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2025 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307, wherein, in a case involving substantially similar facts, it was held that since the victim of the crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant's incarceration would only disrupt the familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child and the fabric of society itself. 11. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had quashed the criminal proceedings exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 12. The second decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is Ayyub Malik Vs State of Uttarakhand, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 19.03.2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 1480 of 2026. In the said judgment, it was held as follows:- “5. There is no gainsaying that the appellants are presently a married couple. Both, out of their own wish and volition tied matrimonial knot as per the rites of their religion. Both belong to the same religion. The appeal before this Court came to be filed by both of them jointly seeking to quash the criminal proceedings which were initiated at the instance of respondent No.2-father of appellant No.2. It is also not disputed that the parties have been happily residing at their matrimonial home at village Saliyar Salhapur, Ganganahar, Roorkee, Haridwar. It was stated that a child has been born out of the wedlock. Page No.# 5/7 5.1 Appellant No.2 gave her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC. before the police at the very initial stage on 10.08.2020. She stated on oath thus, “We have married. We love each other, our family members came to know and they were unwilling. We left the house and got married and now our family members are harassing us. I am happy with him and I want to live with him only. Some people are torturing us and giving us threats to kill, we want to live in our hoe at Saliyer. I am also an adult and have married of my own will. This is my statement.” 5.2 A faint attempt was made by learned counsel for the respondent to try and submit that at the time of incident when the appellant ran away with appellant No.2, appellant No.2 was a minor and was not of marriageable age. On the other hand, it is claimed that the boy and girl had attained marriageable age when they entered into matrimonial relationship. Whether appellant No.2 was minor of the age little less than the marriageable, whether appellant No.1 lured appellant No.2 and made her eloped with him and whether the conduct on the part of appellant No.1 was in the nature of offence alleged against him or not, are the questions which all pale into insignificance. 5.3 The situation is obtained that now the parties voluntarily got married and started residing and living together to lead their married life without any complaint. It is noticeable that when the FIR was filed by the father of appellant No.2 on 01.06.2020, both the appellants had already married according to their own will and choice. Presently, both are major and almost six years have elapsed since they are in matrimonial relationship with each other. 6. It may be true that fleeing with a girl who is not of marriageable age and who is minor is an offence under law, however, the subsequent development of marriage between the two lovers and the fact that they have been merrily living would outweigh the need to take Page No.# 6/7 the alleged offence or the criminal proceedings to their logical end. In the fact situation like one obtained in the present one, continuation of criminal proceedings against appellant No.1 would become harassing and stand as an abuse of process of law. 6.1 Any litigation brings a kind of botheration for the parties. The uncertainty of the outcome of the litigation always looms large. When it is a criminal case, its pendency becomes burdensome and worrisome. For appellant No.1 as well as appellant No.2, negotiating the criminal proceedings in a court of law, notwithstanding that both are now husband and wife living together, would operate as painful interference in their happy life. The High Court would have done justice to the parties only by quashing the criminal proceedings against appellant No.1 initiated by the complainant-father of appellant No.2.” 13. The decision in K. Kirubakaran (supra) was also cited in the aforesaid judgment. 14. From the aforesaid decisions, it would appear that it is well within the inherent powers of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings of this nature when the facts and circumstances so demand. 15. As in the aforesaid cited cases, in the present case also, the parties solemnized marriage after attainment of majority and since then have been leading their matrimonial life with the child begotten out of the said marriage. The victim of the case has herself expressed her unwillingness to pursue the case against the petitioner, although, it may be noticed that the trial has progressed in the meantime. 16. Be that as it may, having regard to the aforesaid facts and Page No.# 7/7 circumstances, read in the light of the cited decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the view that it is a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528, BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 17. Resultantly, the proceedings in Special POCSO Case No.137/2022, pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions No.1-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Nagaon, Assam are hereby quashed. 18. Accordingly, this revision petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant