JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. J.C. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, 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 three petitioners, namely, (1) Umar Faruque @ Faruk Ali, (2) Abul Hussain and (3) Musstt. ‘X’ (name withheld), for quashing of the Criminal Proceeding, being G.R. Case No.34/2016 (corresponding to Bhelowguri P.S. Case No.04/2016), under section 366(A)/34 of the IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been lodged by one Abul Hussain on 08.01.2016.

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

“On 08.01.2016, the petitioner No.2 Abul Hussain lodged an FIR with the Officer-in Charge of the Bhelowguri P.S., alleging inter-alia amongst others that on 07.01.2016, at about 5 P.M., while his minor daughter Smti. ‘X’, aged 10 years, his son Md. Nurjamal and his another daughter Harjina Begum were proceeding to Sahghat, Kaurihagi Chapori, then accused Faruk Ali (petitioner No.1) with one Aktor Ali, Khalilur Rahman, Mutaleb, Saddam, another Saddam Hussain, Kadar Ali and Jiabur Rahman, being armed with sharp objects and lathi, kidnapped his daughter, petitioner No.3, with a view to solemnize her marries with the petitioner No.1.”

4. Upon the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of Bhelowguri Police Station had registered a case, being Bhelowguri P.S. Case No. 04/2016, under Section 366(A)/34 of the IPC and entrusted ASI Nur Uddin Ali to take preliminary step. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer 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, under Section 164 of the CrPC. He also attempted to cause arrest of the accused persons, but could not succeed and therefore, on completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet being C.S. No.13/2016, under Section 366(A) of the IPC, against the petitioner No.1 Umar Faruque @ Faruk Ali, to stand trial in the Court, under the said section of law. It is to be mentioned here that the Investigating Officer had not sent up the other accused persons to stand trial due to want of evidence against them.

5. While the case was pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, the parties have effected a compromise and executed a deed of compromise on 24th of February, 2021 and based upon the said deed of compromise, they have approached this Court for quashing the aforesaid proceeding, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon.

6. Mr. J.C. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner No.3/the victim was minor, yet, subsequently she had attained majority and after attainment of majority, marriage between the petitioner No.3 and the petitioner No.1 was solemnized and they have been leading a happy married life and also they were blessed with a child, and they have affected a compromise and executed a deed of compromise on 24th of February, 2021 and on the basis of the said deed of compromise, the petitioners approached this Court for quashing the entire proceeding, as the offence under Section 366(A) of the IPC is not compoundable, under Section 320 of the CrPC. Referring to a decision of the the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafat Lal and another vs. the State of Rajasthan, in Criminal Appeal No(s).592/2022, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).1806/2021, Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the victim was minor at the relevant point of time, yet, from a perusal of her statement, recorded under Section 164 CrPC, reveals that she eloped with the petitioner No.1 at her own suit will, as there was love affair between her and the petitioner No.