Point of Law: Power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in ‘rarest of rare cases.’

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioners namely, [1] Arup Rajbangshi [2] Sambhu Rajbangshi [3] Rajen Rajbangshi and [4] Suren Deka have filed this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC for short) with prayer for quashing the criminal proceeding being C.R. No. 366/2016 registered u/s 376/493/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).

3. It is contended that the victim arrayed as respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Goalpara on 21.04.2016 alleging inter alia that while she was working as a Nurse in Life Care Hospital, Goalpara, the petitioner No. 1 came to the hospital looking for the ENT doctor. As the doctor was not available, the petitioner No. 1 noted down the phone number of the victim ‘X’ and then both the petitioner No. 1 and the victim got closely acquainted. This first meeting of the petitioner No. 1 with the victim ‘X’ was six months prior to the filing of the complaint. The petitioner No. 1 who posed himself as an Army man proposed marriage but ‘X’ declined the proposal. Then the petitioner No. 1 came to the victim’s rented room at Goalpara and entered into her room and closed the door and tackled her and pinned her to the bed and ripped off her clothes and had physical relationship with the respondent No. 2 against her will. When the respondent No. 2 raised alarm, the petitioner No. 1 consoled her and promised to marry her. In this manner the petitioner No. 1 promised to marry the respondent No. 2 and on that pretext had physical relationship with her. When the respondent No. 2 demanded that the petitioner No. 1 has to keep his promise and marry her, the petitioner No. 1 came to her house and made the proposal of marriage between him and the respondent No. 2 to the mother and the elder brother of the respondent No. 2. Then the guardians of the respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner No. 1 to call his parents and the petitioner No. 1 assured that his parents would meet the respondent No. 2’s guardians within two days. After the proposal, the petitioner No. 1 stayed in the house of Dhananjay Ray, the accused No. 5, mentioned in the FIR who is also the respondent No. 2’s uncle, for two days. In connivance with accused No. 5, the petitioner No. 1 then fled the scene. The respondent No. 2’s parents went and informed the petitioner No. 1’s parents about the incident and they assured the respondent No. 2’s parents that that her marriage with the petitioner No. 1 would be arranged. Thereafter on 20.02.2016 all the petitioners visited the respondent No. 2’s house and informed that the petitioner No. 1 had refused to marry the respondent No. 2 and it was also revealed that the petitioner No. 1 is not an Army personnel. The petitioners then assured to pay Rs. 2 lacs in cash and Rs. 5,000/-as monthly maintenance to the respondent No. 2 and an agreement was executed on 20.03.2016, but the petitioners have declined to pay the promised amount and instead they have threatened the respondent No. 2 and her family. As a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 2, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Goalpara registered the same as C.R. Case No. 366/2016 u/s 376/420/506/34 IPC and the statement of the respondent No. 2 was recorded u/s 200 Cr.PC. The statements of two other witnesses namely, Samer Ali and Damayanti Roy were also recorded u/s 202 Cr.PC. Cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate u/s 376 IPC against the petitioner No. 1 and u/s 420/506/34 IPC against the other petitioners vide order dated 11.04.2018. Summonses were issued for appearance on 31.05.2018.

4. It is admitted by the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 had a friendly relationship. The respondent No. 2 invited the petitioner No. 1 on 25.01.2016 and so the petition