Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 8 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010127582021
2025:GAU-AS:10437
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./433/2021
GUNJA DUTTA
SON OF LATE PHANIDHAR DUTTA,
A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF GARMUR NAPAM, P.S. JORHAT, DIST.
JORHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SMT. RINA MITHI TERONPI
W/O BIDYA SING RONGPHER
A RESIDENT OF VILL- RONGKURU
P.S. KHERONI
DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
MOBILE NUMBER(S)-8471997939
863879150
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BANIK, A N HUSSAIN,MR. M K RONGPI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. R BORA,MR. D GOGOI,MS. S KHANIKAR (R-
2),MS H TERANGPI (R-2)
Linked Case : Crl.Pet./361/2021
GUNJA DUTTA
Page No.# 2/7
S/O LATE PHANIDHAR DUTTA
R/O GARMUR NAPAM
PS JORHAT
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PP
ASSAM
2:RINA MITHI TERONPI
W/O BIDYA SING RONGPHAR
R/O RONGKURU
PS KHERONI
DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
M NO. 8471997939
8638791502
------------
Advocate for : MR. S BANIK
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 08.08.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(S.K. Sharma, J)
Heard Mr. S Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P S Lahkar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. Also heard Mr. R Bora, learned counsel for
the respondent No. 2.
2. By way of these two criminal petitions the petitioner has challenged the FIR as well as
the Charge-Sheet pertaining to Kheroni Police Station Case No. 51/2021 under Sections
Page No.# 3/7
365/376/506 IPC, wherein the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence and
issued process to the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Smt.
Rina Mithi Teronpi in both the aforesaid criminal petitions.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2021 the Opposite Party/Informant had lodged
an Ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Kheroni Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the
petitioner had shown temptations to the informant and had then forcibly taken her in his
vehicle to Jorhat where at night he had raped her and that the following day he had dropped
her back. On receipt of the Ejahar, police authorities registered Kheroni Police Station Case
No. 51/2021 under Sections 365/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Ejahar was
received and registered on 19.05.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged victim of the case was
a married woman who voluntarily went with the petitioner on account of their relationship.
6. Pointing to the medical report in respect of the alleged victim, it is pointed out that she
had clearly stated in her history that she eloped with the petitioner at her own will and had
been to Jorhat, where she met the relatives of the petitioner and that the petitioner had
applied Sindoor voluntarily in presence of relatives and that she had sexual intercourse on her
own will. However, the Investigating Officer has submitted the Charge-Sheet without
appreciating the contents of the medical examination report.
7. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court, without applying its mind to the materials
available on record mechanically took cognizance of the said offences.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the uncontroverted
allegations, no case under Sections 365/376/506 is made out either and accordingly, prayed
for quashing of the FIR as well as the Charge-Sheet.
9. The alleged victim/respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit before this Court, wherein she
has stated that she was a consenting party to the acts alleged in the aforesaid FIR, Charge-
Sheet as well as the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and that the FIR
Page No.# 4/7
was lodged out of anger and misunderstanding. It is further stated that she does not support
the allegations made in the purported FIR and Charge-Sheet as well as her previous
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. R Bora has also submitted that the
respondent No. 2 is now leading a happy married life since the last 5 years and in case the
trial is allowed to proceed, she would be further humiliated in the eyes of the society.
11. I have duly considered the submissions advanced by the parties and also perused the
contents of the FIR, Charge-Sheet and the relevant documents available on record.
12. It is by now settled that a High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. can very well quash a criminal proceeding or a criminal complaint under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., but while doing so, the Court is to follow certain principles as enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab and Another reported in 2012 10 SCC
303, and in State of Madhya Pradesh -Vs- Laxmi Narayan and Others reported in 2019 5 SCC
688.
13. In the case of Laxmi Narayan, (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain
guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is submitted that instant case
falls within the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
14. For ready reference, paragraph-13 of Laxmi Narayan (Supra) is extracted herein below:
“13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point,
referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
(i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can
be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the
entire dispute amongst themselves;
(ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
Page No.# 5/7Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special
statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis
of compromise between the victim and the offender;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category
of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against
the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which
have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their
entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to
examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it
or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to
framing the charge under Section 307 IPC.
For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury
sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge
sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not
permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate
conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of
Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and
in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature
and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a
Page No.# 6/7
settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is
required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused,
namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he
had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”
15. The allegation leveled by the respondent No. 2 relates to the commission of offence
under Section 376 IPC. It is well settled that this court should not normally exercise its power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash offences of heinous nature having social impact on the
basis of settlement between the parties. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kapil
Gupta Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1030 after dealing with
the law laid down in this behalf has concluded that though the court should be slow in
quashing the proceeding wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is
not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such
an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving
the charge for the offence charged with. In the instant case, the alleged victim has
completely repudiated her previous statements alleging rape.
16. Upon perusal of the material on record it is noticed that this Court while granting bail
to the petitioner by its order dated 23.06.2021 passed in B.A. No. 1290/2021 had recorded
that on perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the police forwarding report, it is
noticed that the victim is married and she in fact voluntarily accompanied the accused
petitioner who is a Police Officer aged about 52 years.
17. It is palpably clear that there was an existing relationship between the petitioner and
the respondent No. 2 and it would not have been possible for the petitioner to come from
Jorhat to Karbi Anglong and forcefully take away a married woman all by himself as alleged in
the FIR.
18. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by both the parties, this Court is of the view that
although the allegations, on the face of it is serious, in the given facts of the present case,
having regard to the present stand of the alleged victim, no fruitful purpose would be served
by allowing the trial to commence. Rather, it is likely to result in unproductive expansion of
judicial time and would cause harm to the reputation of the alleged victim herself and ending
Page No.# 7/7
the matter at this stage would not have any adverse impact on society.
19. Considering the factual background of the present case and also considering the
nature of offence including the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the
considered opinion that this is a fit case, where this Court should exercise its inherent power
under Section 482 of CrPC to quash G.R. No. 89/2021 corresponding to PRC No. 40/2021
arising out of Kheroni Police Station Case No. 51/2021 under Sections 365/376/506 IPC.
20. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are allowed by setting aside and quashing the
G.R. No. 89/2021 corresponding to PRC No. 40/2021 arising out of Kheroni Police Station
Case No. 51/2021.
21. Return the TCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant