Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1626 (GAU)

Jahirul Islam @ Johirul Hoque v. State of Assam

2018-11-19

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. By this petition under Section 482 read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the Charge sheet No. 358 dated 30.11.2015 arising out of an FIR in connection with Boko PS Case No.618 of 2015 under Section 498-A/313/341/342/34 of the IPC pending in the Court of learned Additional CJM, Kamrup, Amingaon. 3. The petitioners’ case in a nutshell is that the respondent No. 2 who is the father of the petitioner No.6 herein filed an FIR on 25.10.2015 before the In-charge of Chamaria Police Outpost under Boko Police Station alleging that the petitioner the husband and four in-laws of his daughter meted out physical and mental torture thereby causing miscarriage of pregnancy. After completion of the investigation, police submitted Charge sheet under Section 498-A/313/341/342/34 of the IPC against the petitioners. 4. Mr. A Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that after recording the statements of the petitioner No.6 herein under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the dispute between her and other petitioners were amicably settled in presence of the elderly persons of the locality and pursuant thereto, the petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.6, the husband and wife respectively have resumed their conjugal life. Their family has been blessed with a male child, who is now aged about one year and 11 months. Therefore, the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have decided not to pursue the case to protect the interest of the family life of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.6. Petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.6, the husband and wife have filed separate affidavits declaring that the disputes have been amicably settled and they have resumed their normal conjugal life and further, that they have been living in peace and as such, they are not interested to proceed with the case. 5. Mr. Petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.6, the husband and wife have filed separate affidavits declaring that the disputes have been amicably settled and they have resumed their normal conjugal life and further, that they have been living in peace and as such, they are not interested to proceed with the case. 5. Mr. TK Mishra, learned Addl.P.P, submits that keeping in consideration of the very fact that the husband and wife have resumed their conjugal relationship and out of their wedlock, a male child has also been born, it is in the interest of their peaceful family life that their domestic differences should be brought to an end as continuation of the proceeding would be a futile exercise and no conviction of the accused persons can be reached. 6. In the case of Amita Maria Dias & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. Reported in (2018) 3 SCC 290 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as quoted below: “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.” 7. In the case of Badana begum (Musstt.) & Ors. Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2018 (1) GLT 692, this Court has observed in paragraph-4 as stated below:- “4. In the case at hand, it appears that though the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC is not compoundable, the parties, including the husband and the wife i.e. the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have amicably settled their dispute and they have been enjoying a peaceful family life. Therefore, continuance of the said proceeding will not yield any fruitful result, rather it may adversely affect the family life of the petitioners. Therefore, ends of justice demands closure of the case aforementioned. In view of the above decisions and the principles laid down thereon and considering the entire aspect of the matter, I find it to be fit case to allow the prayer for quashing the proceeding. Accordingly, the proceeding of G.R. Case No.979/2010 (Hojai P.S. Case No.241/2010) under Section 498 A IPC, pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar is quashed. The criminal petition is allowed.” 8. Accordingly, the proceeding of G.R. Case No.979/2010 (Hojai P.S. Case No.241/2010) under Section 498 A IPC, pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar is quashed. The criminal petition is allowed.” 8. Having considered the very fact that the disputes between the parties are entirely pertaining to their matrimonial relationship which have already been amicably settled between the parties and pursuant thereto, the family life has also already been restored and out of their wedlock, a male child has sprung off, therefore, in the considerate opinion of this Court, continuance of the criminal case would only jeopardize the family life of the parties and healthy growth of the child born out of their wedlock. Therefore, this Court finds it expedient in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the entire proceedings, as prayed for and accordingly, it is ordered. 9. The petition stands disposed of. 10. Send a copy of this order to the learned trial court.