JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent no.2. and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Shahidur Rahman @ Shahidul Ali, 2. Mirzan Ali @ Mizanur Ali and 3. Fuljan Nessa, for quashing the impugned Charge-Sheet No. 304/2021, dated 31.10.2021, arising out of Sarthebari P.S Case No.472/2018 (PRC Case No. 1470/2022), under Sections 447/366(A)/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, Assam. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 07/10/2018, an FIR was lodged by one Siraj Ali, resident of Helcharpam, Police Station, Sarthebari, in the District of Barpeta, Assam, stating inter alia that one month ago from the date of lodging the first information report, his minor daughter namely Hasina Khatun (17 Years) was forcefully taken by the FIR named accused No. 3 from Helcharpam Government Road at 4 PM and she was kept at their house. Subsequently she was recovered. Again on 07/10/2018, at around 9 AM in the morning, the accused No. 1 and 2 came in a motorcycle and when they were about to take his daughter away by force, the neighbours resisted them. Then the accused No. 1 fled away in the motorcycle and the accused No. 2 was detained by them. Hence, he lodged the FIR. 4. After receiving the FIR, a case was registered against them being the Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 472/2018 under Sections 447/366(A)/511/34 IPC in connection with the above stated case. 5. After the said FIR was registered, the police investigated the case and the charge sheet was laid vide No. 304/2021 dated 31/10/2021, before the learned CJM, Barpeta, under Sections 447/366/511/34 IPC against the petitioners and the same has been registered as PRC No. 1470/2022 and notice to the accused/petitioners have been issued but the case is still in the stage of appearance. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant had lodged the said FIR in a fit of rage as there was a family dispute between the family of the informant and the accused persons and after lodging the FIR the informant had realized that the continuation of case would only deteriorate the relationship between the two families and same will be harmful for both the families. Therefore, the informant had discussed the matter with the family of the accused and subsequently a compromise has been reached between the two families whereby the informant has voluntarily agreed to withdraw the case registered as Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 472/2018 filed against the accused persons and decided not to proceed further with the PRC No. 1470/2022. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the victim girl has also got married and she has also agreed not to proceed with the said case considering her married life to progress without any problem. 8. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the allegation made in the F.I.R., though criminal in nature, but it is predominantly civil in nature and both the parties have already resolved their disputes by executing an affidavit after the village meeting and accordingly, on the basis of the said compromise, the said criminal proceeding is liable to be set aside and quashed. More so, the victim was major at the relevant time of incident and she also refused to go for medical examination which otherwise reveals that with a false allegation, the informant lodged the F.I.R. only due to some family disputes. 9. He further submitted that as the matter has already been settled/compromised, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and hence, the continuation of such criminal proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the Court. The victim has already executed an affidavit to save her matrimonial life. 10. In support of his submission, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, further placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. The victim has already executed an affidavit to save her matrimonial life. 10. In support of his submission, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, further placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , wherein it has been held that “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.” 11. He further relied on another decision of the Supreme Court passed in case of Kapil Gupta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. , reported in 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1108 , wherein it has been held that “it is further to be noted that since the respondent No. 2 herself is not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal, if the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.” 12. Mr. Ahmed also relied on a decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Rajen Gohain Vs. State of Assam & Anr. (Crl. Pet. No. 122/2019), wherein this Court has observed as under: “In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that heinous crimes such as rape, murder, dacoity cannot be compounded and therefore, such proceedings cannot be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. But at the same time, it is also to be noted herein that the scope and ambit of the power of the High Court to quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been firmly settled since the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and others (supra).” 13. In this context, Mr. In this context, Mr. R.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant, has submitted that both the parties have already settled/compromised the matter and to that effect, both the victim and the informant also sworn an affidavit which has been brought on record by way of an additional affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 and hence, they have no objection in setting aside and quashing of the criminal proceeding pending against the present accused/ petitioners. Rather, both the informant and the victim are facing mental agony due to the pendency of the present case as the victim already got married with another person and the further proceeding of the said case may affect her marital life. 14. Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, respondent No. 1, has submitted that it is a serious offence wherein the allegation is of attempted kidnapping of a minor girl against the present accused/petitioners and hence, the proceedings should not be quashed by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the case record of PRC Case No.1470/2022. 16. It is seen that after investigation, the I.O. filed Charge-Sheet against both the accused/petitioners under Sections 447/366(A)/511/34 IPC. As per the case of the petitioners, it was only due to misunderstanding and rage that the case was lodged by the father of the victim, but subsequently they have settled the matter and the victim also got married with another person. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to the pendency of the criminal proceeding, the victim as well as the informant is facing mental agony as it may affect the married life of the victim, who is peacefully living with her husband at present. To avoid all these circumstances, the matter was also settled/compromised in village meeting and in pursuant to the said meeting, both the victim as well as the informant also sworn affidavit stating that they have no objection if the criminal proceeding is set aside and quashed. 17. Here in the instant case, it is seen that an allegation of attempted kidnapping of a minor girl is brought against the accused/petitioners. 17. Here in the instant case, it is seen that an allegation of attempted kidnapping of a minor girl is brought against the accused/petitioners. However, it is also a fact that the matter has already been compromised between the parties and both the victim and the informant also executed affidavit stating that they do not have any objection in the event of quashing the entire criminal proceeding as the F.I.R. was lodged only due to some misunderstanding and moreover, the informant and the victim are suffering from mental agony due to pendency of the said proceeding which may affect the married life of the victim. 18. In the case of Narinder Singh (supra) , the Supreme Court has expressed the view that while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the timing of settlement is very crucial and in cases where the settlement is arrived immediately after the alleged commission of offence or the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the statement to quash the criminal proceeding/investigation. In cases where the charge is framed, but the evidence is yet to be commenced and evidence is still in initial stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its power favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. 19. Here in the instant case, it is seen that the charge is yet to be framed. It is the case of the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2 that as the victim already got married with another person and the F.I.R. was lodged only due to some misunderstanding, both the informant and the victim are not interested to proceed with the case further. Rather, they are suffering from mental agony due to pendency of the said proceeding which may affect the married life of the victim. 20. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has held that “the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or First Information Report (FIR) if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly and likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.” 21. In the instant case, it is seen that both the victim and the informant are facing severe mental agony only for the pendency of the criminal proceeding against the present accused/ petitioners and they have already settled the matter amicably which was lodged against the present accused/ petitioners only due to some misunderstanding. The ground behind their mental agony is also that the further proceedings of the criminal case may also affect the married life of the victim and with that view, both the victim and the informant, the vital witnesses of the prosecution, are not interested to proceed with the case further. 22. Thus, it can be held that even if the case is allowed to be proceeded further, the chance of conviction is remote and bleak. Further, since the matter has already been settled between the parties, it is unlikely that the informant and the victim will depose against both the accused/petitioners and in that event allowing the proceeding to continue before the learned Court below, it will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 23. In view of above and also considering the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case laws referred to herein above as well as for ends of justice, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the criminal proceeding pending against the present accused/petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The F.I.R. of Sarthebari P.S Case No.472/2018, under Sections 447/366(A)/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code; Charge-Sheet No. 304/2021, dated 31.10.2021; as well as the proceeding initiated in PRC Case No.1470/2022, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, Assam, stands quashed. 24. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.