Point of Law : Power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

JUDGMENT :

This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner, namely, Md. Zenaid Uddin Ahmed @ Md. Zunaid Uddin Ahmed, for quashing of criminal proceeding in P.R.C. Case No. 276/2021, under Sections 366/376 of the IPC arising out of Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 313/2019 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaliabor, Nagaon.

2. It is to be noted here that Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 313/2019 under Sections 366/376 of the IPC, has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R. lodged by one, Ms. Sumsun Nehar (actual name withheld)/respondent no.2, on 06.05.2019, to the effect that while she was studying in Kaliabor College, then one Md. Zuniauddin Ahmed, the petitioner, proposed to love her and accordingly, she agreed to the same. Thereafter, on 30.04.2019, while she was proceeding towards her College, the petitioner allured her and took her to the house of his uncle, maternal uncle and aunt. And thereafter, on 05.05.2019 at about 12 pm, the petitioner, on the pretext of dropping her at her residence, took her to the market, under Samguri Police Station and thereafter he left her there and fled away. And during the aforesaid period the petitioner committed rape upon her. On receipt of the F.I.R., the Officer-in-Charge, Kaliabor Police Station, registered a case, being Kaliabor P.S. Case No. 46/2019 under Sections 366/376 IPC, and endorsed one ASI to investigate the case. But, later on, the same was transferred to the Rupahihat Police Station as the place of occurrence took place in the jurisdiction of Rupahihat Police Station and then the Officer-in-Charge of Rupahihat Police Station registered a case No. 313/2019, under Sections 366/376 IPC and investigated the same. The investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 366/376 IPC, before the court of learned SDJM (M), Kaliabor. Eventually, the learned SDJM (M) Kaliabor, has made over the case to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaliabor. While the case was pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, the petitioner has effected a compromise with the victim girl/respondent No.2, and thereafter, he approached this Court by filing the present petition for quashing the proceeding of P.R.C. Case No. 276/2021, arising out of Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 313/2019, under Sections 366/376 of the IPC, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaliabor, Nagaon, The petitioner has also enclosed one affidavit of the victim girl/respondent No.2, with the petition to the effect that she lodged the F.I.R. due to misunderstanding and that she and the accused attained the age of 18 years and they were in a relationship and due to misunderstanding, she lodge the F.I.R. due to influence of someone else and presently, she got married with another person and leading a peaceful life and she is not willing to pursue the present case.

3. I have heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam/respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.H. Sikder, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

4. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case was lodged due to misunderstanding between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were in relationship at that time and both are major and on the influence of someone else, the respondent No. 2 lodged the F.I.R. against the petitioner and that they have effected a compromise and the respondent No. 2 also sworn one affidavit to that effect. Mr. Saikia further submitted that the respondent No.2 is not willing to pursue the case against the petitioner as she got married with another person and leading a happy life and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition by quashing the proceeding pending against the petitioner.

5. Mr. S.H. Sikder, learned counsel for the respond