The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings involving allegations of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, despite a compromise between the accused and the victim’s father. Justice Pranjal Das, presiding over the case, observed that even in a premarital love relationship, a forceful physical relationship against a woman’s wish remains a criminal act.
The petitioner, Hamedur Islam alias Hamidur Islam, approached the High Court invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash Fakirganj PS Case No. 16/2025. The case involved charges under Sections 329(4), 64, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The primary legal question was whether the court should exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings for serious offences like rape and POCSO when the parties have reached a settlement and intend to marry.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR lodged on February 1, 2025, by the father of the alleged victim. The informant alleged that on January 29, 2025, the accused entered his house while his wife was away and raped his daughter, who was a minor (approximately 17 years old) at the time. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted on April 30, 2025.
The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged at the behest of members of the Northeast Minority Students Union (NEMSU) following a prior FIR filed by the petitioner’s mother against NEMSU members.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. N. J. Dutta, argued that a compromise agreement dated May 30, 2025, had been executed between the accused and the informant. It was submitted that the victim, who has since attained majority, was in a love relationship with the petitioner and both families had consented to their marriage.
Informant’s Position: The informant filed an additional affidavit stating he had no objection to quashing the proceedings. He admitted that the rape allegations were the “outcome of coercion and influence of some NEMSU members” and stated that “nothing happened on my daughter as I claimed in the FIR.”
State’s Opposition: The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. M. P. Goswami, opposed the quashing, pointing out that the victim’s statements to the police and the Magistrate clearly implicated the petitioner. He argued that rape is a serious offence and questioned the court’s power to quash such proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the legal framework for quashing non-compoundable offences based on settlements, citing the Supreme Court decisions in Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab (2014) and State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan (2019). The Court noted that inherent powers should not be exercised for “heinous and serious offences of mental depravity” like murder or rape, as these have a serious impact on society.
Justice Das observed that while the petitioner and informant had reached an agreement, the victim herself had not entered into any such agreement. The Court highlighted that in her statements recorded under investigation:
“She has consistently stated about commission of rape and has not indicated any consent on her part… any such physical relationship between the parties being consensual does not emerge from her statements. Rather, it is the opposite.”
Addressing the argument regarding the love relationship, the Court stated:
“Even if a man and a woman are in a relationship; that would certainly not give a license to the man to commit rape upon the girl. Though marital rape is still not criminalized in the country, but even in a premarital love relationship between a man and a woman; committing forceful physical relationship upon her against her wish would still be a criminal act.”
Decision
The Court concluded that since the victim was prima facie a minor at the time of the incident and given the nature of the serious penal provisions involved, quashing the proceedings would not be justified.
“Consequently, the instant criminal petition stands dismissed and disposed of,” the judgment read.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Hamedur Islam Alias Hamidur Islam vs. The State Of Assam And Anr
- Case No.: Crl.Pet./1608/2025
- Bench: Justice Pranjal Das
- Date: March 25, 2026
