JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

2. This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is preferred jointly by two petitioners, namely, (1) Smti. Shilpa Kumari @ Shilpa Kumari Rai and (2) Sri Sumangal Ray @ Shiva Mangal Rai, for quashing of the Sessions Case No. 260/2015 arising out of Sachal/Satgaon P.S. Case No.37/2012, under section 366 of the IPC, pending before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup(M).

3. The factual background of filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:

“On 05.03.2012, Shri Sumangal Ray of Patharkuari, Narengi, lodged an FIR with the O/C Satgaon Police Station to the effect that on the same day, at about 5.30 AM in the morning, he found his daughter Miss Shilpa Kumari, aged 18 years, missing from his house. On enquiry, he also found that one Shiva Mahatoo, who was also living in his locality, missing from his house, and as such he apprehends that Shiva Mahatoo and his family members were involved in the kidnapping of his daughter.”

4. Upon the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of Satgaon Police Station had registered a case, being Satgaon P.S. Case No.71/2020, under section 366 of the IPC and entrusted SI D.M. Deka to investigate the same. Accordingly, the investigating officer had visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and recovered the victim girl and got her examined by the Doctor and also got her statement recorded in the Court, and thereafter, handed her over to the informant. He also arrested the accused and forwarded him to the court. Then on completion of investigation, the investigating officer had laid charge sheet against the accused Shiva Mahatoo, to stand the trial in Court, under Section 366 of the IPC.

5. While the case was pending before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M) at the stage of evidence, the petitioner No.1 and 2 got married separately and leading a peaceful married life and also they were blessed with children. Therefore, they have decided amongst themselves not to proceed with the case further and they have approached this Court by filing the present application for quashing the aforesaid proceeding. The respondent No.2, i.e. the informant, also filed an affidavit on 16.02.2023, to the effect that his daughter, i.e. the victim, already got married with another person and she has been blessed with a child and the present proceeding may disturb her married life and therefore, it is contended to drop the proceeding.

6. Mr. S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both petitioners, No.1 and 2, got married separately and they are leading their peaceful married life and the petitioner No.1 is blessed with a child also and therefore, they are not willing to pursue the matter and approached this Court by filing the present application for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending before the learned Court below. Mr. Chauhan further submits that though the petitioner No.1, in her statement has implicated the petitioner No.2, yet, no incident of kidnapping had taken place and that she had given the statement under duress and on being threatened by her father and maternal uncle. It is the further submission of Mr. Chauhan that the informant, who is arraigned as respondent No.2 here in this petition, also filed an affidavit to the effect that he has no objection in the event of allowing this petition.

7. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that the victim was major at the time of occurrence and that the respondent No. 2 also filed an affidavit to the effect that he has no objection in the event of allowing the petition. Mr. Shamra further submits that both the petitioners got married separately and leading their peaceful married life and as such the State has no objection in the event of quashing the proceed