Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 615 (GAU)

Meher Ali v. State of Assam

2019-05-17

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State/opp. party No.1. Also heard Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the opp. party No.2. 2. The informant Chakreswar Das lodged an FIR before the officer-in-charge of Kamalpur Police Station alleging inter alia that on 05.12.2016, his daughter namely Mamoni Das, aged about 17 years was missing after she left the school on a bicycle. The informant also came to know that the accused has accompanied the girl. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the Kamalpur P.S. Case No.173/2016, u/s.366 IPC was registered and at the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused/petitioner Meher Ali, u/s.366 IPC, read with Sections 4/6/8 of the POCSO Act. 4. The learned trial Court also took cognizance of the offence under the said sections of law, after receipt of the charge sheet. 5. Challenging the entire proceeding, pertaining to the aforesaid case vide Spl. (POCSO) No.13/2017, the accused/petitioner is before the Court with the present petition u/s.482 CrPC read with Section 397, for setting aside and quashing the order of taking cognizance and the entire proceeding on the ground that the victim is not a minor and due to the love affairs between the parties, she has left the matrimonial home out of her own volition and subsequently they also married and resided together since after the incident. It is submitted that in view of the statement of the victim herself and the factum of marriage between the parties, being the major one, there cannot be any offence u/s.366 IPC and other Sections of the POCSO Act, as has been charged by the learned trial Court. 6. On the other hand, the father of the victim i.e. the informant has also amicably settled the matter and he is no more interested to proceed with the case. Accordingly it has been contended that in view of the settlement and the marriage between the accused and the victim, further continuation of the criminal proceeding will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and it will cause serious miscarriage of justice if the proceeding is allowed to continue. 7. Accordingly it has been contended that in view of the settlement and the marriage between the accused and the victim, further continuation of the criminal proceeding will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and it will cause serious miscarriage of justice if the proceeding is allowed to continue. 7. Pursuant to the service of notice, the learned counsel for the informant have also entered their appearance and have fairly admitted the submission that has been made by the present petitioner that the matter has already been settled immediately after filing of the case, as soon as it was known that there was a marriage between the parties at their own will. An affidavit filed as Annexure-2 has also been pressed into, to submit that the informant has already acknowledged that the case was filed due to misunderstanding and he also came to know that his daughter willfully solemnized her marriage with the accused/petitioner Meher Ali, without any force and coercion and they are living a happy conjugal life. 8. On the next, the victim girl has also sworn an affidavit to the effect that presently she is 22 years of age and at the time of occurrence, she was 19 years but the learned Magistrate has wrongly recorded her age as 17 years although she has stated her age to be 19 years. It has been pointed out that the Medical Report annexed in the case record also indicates that the age of the girl is 19 years at the time of occurrence. 9. The victim in her statement has also submitted that she already entered into marriage with the present petitioner with her own independent decision and they are living a peaceful conjugal life and she is not at all a minor as has been alleged in the FIR. 10. The learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1, Mr. B.J. Dutta has also conceded to the prayer made by the petitioner in view of the facts narrated in the petition as well as the statement of the victim girl. 11. On careful examination of all the materials on record, it is discernible that the aforesaid FIR was filed on misunderstanding on the part of the informant as the victim was missing without any intimation to her guardian. 11. On careful examination of all the materials on record, it is discernible that the aforesaid FIR was filed on misunderstanding on the part of the informant as the victim was missing without any intimation to her guardian. On the next, the informant as well as the victim has also asserted that the victim was not a minor at the time of occurrence whereas she was 19 years old. In that view of the matter, no any offence will be attracted against the present petitioner and now they are leading a happy married life. 12. In such backdrop, further continuance of the criminal proceeding will be detrimental to the marital life of the petitioner and the victim and it will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law, if such criminal proceeding is allowed to continue. Rather interest of justice will be served if the parties are allowed to continue their marital live, being major and having their discretion to enter into the marriage. 13. Taking into account all above and the statement made before this Court and the documents filed, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to allow the prayer made in the petition. Accordingly the proceeding pertaining to the Spl. (POCSO) No.13/2017, pending before the learned court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup (R) at Rangia, is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. Return the LCR immediately.