IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that when parties settle a dispute amicably, especially in matrimonial cases, and the possibility of conviction is remote, the court may quash the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of its process and secure the end of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, Adv., learned counsel for the petitioner, and also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 & 3; and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent No. 1.

2. This application, under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is preferred by Sri Dulanta Jyoti Kakati for quashing the proceeding in PRC Case No. 260/21 (GR Case No. 416/2021) arising out of Bokajan P.S. Case No. 152/2021, under sections 420/509 IPC read with section 67 A IT Act.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition are adumbrated herein below:-

“On 19.08.2021, the informant, namely, Shri Dilip Kalita lodged one FIR with the O/C Bokajan Police Station alleging inter alia amongst others that on 13.08.2021, he had seen an obscene video of his daughter in the mobile phone of his daughter and then on being asked about the same his daughter told him that accused Dulanta Kakati, having promised to marry her was in a relationship with her and though his daughter stopped maintaining the same, as said Dulanta Kakati already being married, he forced her to meet him and on refusal he threatened her to make viral her photos and video, which were with him and also made the same viral. Upon the said FIR the O/C of Bokajan PS registered a case, being Bokajan P.S. Case No. 152/2021, under sections 420/509 IPC read with section 67(A) IT Act and carried out investigation and the same culminated in submission of charge sheet, being Charge Sheet No. 107/2021, dated 28.09.2021, against the accused Dulanta Kakati. Upon the said charge sheet the learned court below had taken cognizance and issued process to the accused. Upon appearance of the accused and complying the provision of section 207 Cr.P.C. the learned court below had framed charge against the accused under sections 420/509 IPC read with section 67(A) IT Act and on being read and explained over the accused pleaded not guilty to the same. Thereafter, the learned court below had examined as many as two witnesses.”

4. Being aggrieved by the said proceeding the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition for quashing and setting aside on the following grounds:-

(i) That, there are material contradictions in the versions of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. and in her evidence before the court as P.W.2;

(ii) That, the evidence of P.W.2 is unworthy of credence;

(iii) That, the allegation made in the FIR is baseless and it is an abuse of the process of the court;

(iv) That, the proceeding was imitated with the sole object of punishing the petitioner and there is material omission in her version and she has twisted the actual facts;

(v) That, the proceeding was conducted in contravention of section 65 of the Evidence Act;

5. It is to be mentioned here that the petitioner had filed an Additional Affidavit and placed on record an Affidavit (Annexure-14) of the informant and the victim to the effect that they are not willing to proceed with the case as they have effected compromise and they also have no objection if the criminal proceeding is quashed and the criminal petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

6. Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the additional affidavit and also in view of the Annexure -14 enclosed there with, and as the parties have decided not to pursue the matter before the learned court below, this petition may be allowed. And the criminal proceeding, pending against the petitioner before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokajan may be quashed. Mr. Sheikh also submits that marriage of the victim is being arranged with another person and on such count also the victim is not willing to proceed with the case.

7. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent No.1, submits that since the parties have settled the dispute amicably, the state has no objection in the event of allowing the petition but he submits that some serious allegation have be