Mst. Hafija Begum Barbhuiya @ Hajan Bibi and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Hossain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 (informant) and 3 (victim) and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.

¶22

By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR dated 05.08.2013 lodged at Hailakandi Police Station in District- Hailakandi and registered as Hailakandi PS Case No.290/2013 under Section 365/34 IPC and the impugned charge-sheet No.313/2015 dated 30.09.2015 arising out of the aforesaid FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings in connection to G.R. Case No.870/2013 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi.

¶23

The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR alleging that his son/respondent No.2 has been kidnapped by the petitioners and accordingly a case was registered under Section 365/34 IPC.

¶24

It appears that after the investigation was completed, charge-sheet was submitted vide charge-sheet No.313/2015 and

¶25

Page No.# 3/6

¶26

thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded with the case. Against the aforesaid FIR and the subsequent charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings, the present criminal petition has been filed.

¶27

Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 had a love affair with the respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 had voluntarily gone to the house of the petitioner. However, due to misunderstanding, the respondent No.2, who is the father of the respondent No.3 lodged the FIR.

¶28

He further submits that upon misunderstanding being clarified, the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 has sworn an affidavit before the Notary Officer, wherein they have clearly admitted that the FIR was lodged out of misunderstanding and that the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties.

¶29

He accordingly submits that in view of the aforesaid compromise, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is not justified.

¶30

Mr. M. Hossain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 (informant) and 3 (victim) concedes the aforesaid submission of Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and further submits that due to love affair between the respondent No.3 and the petitioner No.1, the respondent No.3 had fled with her which was misunderstood by respondent no.2 and accordingly filed the FIR. He further submits

¶31

Page No.# 4/6

¶32

that after the misunderstanding was over, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has compromised the matter with the petitioners.

¶33

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶34

Apt to reproduce the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and 3 sworn before the Notary Officer, which is enclosed as Annexure-A to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners on 30.08.2025, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

¶35

“ BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC, HAILAKANDI AFFIDAVIT

¶36

We, (1) Sri. Noor Uddin Barbhuiya, S/O Late Tabarak Ali Barbhulya, aged about 52 years, and (2) Ikbal Hussain Barbhuiya @Akbar Hussain, S/O Noor Uddin Barbhuiya, aged about 25 years; Both are R/O VIll. Kanchanpur Part-II, P.O Kanchanpur, P.S & District-Hailakandi, Assam do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

¶37

1. That, we are the citizens of India by birth and permanent residents of the aforesaid address.

¶38

2. That the deponent no. 2 is the son of deponent No. 1. The deponent no. 2 developed love affair with one Smt. Hafija Begum Barbhuiya @ Hajan Bibi and they fled away out of their voluntary will. Out of misunderstanding, the deponent No. 1 lodged an FIR against Smt. Hafija Begum Barbhuiya @ Hajan Bibi and her brother Nizam Uddin. The said FIR was registered as Hailakandi PS Case No. 290/2013 dated 05.08.2013 u/s 365/34 IPC. Subsequently, charge-sheet being C.S No. 313/2015 dated

¶39

Page No.# 5/6

¶40

30.09.2015 u/s 365/34 IPC has been filed and the matter is now pending in the Court of Ld. CJM, Hailakandi.

¶41

3. That the aforesaid FIR was lodged by the deponent No. 1 out of misunder-standing and the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties and they have no grudge against each other and they want to live peacefully.

¶42

4. That by way of the instant affidavit, the deponents declare that they have no objection if the aforesaid FIR and subsequent criminal proceeding arising thereof is quashed/closed/declared to be mutually settled by the competent court of law.

¶43

5. That the instant affidavit has been sworn by the deponents voluntarily in sound mind and without any force, threat or compulsion.

¶44

6. That the statements made in above paras are true to our knowledge and belief

¶45

-OATH-

¶46

‘ We swear that this our declaration is true, that it conceals nothing and that no part of it is false, So help us God.’

¶47

And we sign this affidavit today on this the 30th day of May., 2023 at Hailakandi.”

¶48

Perusal of the aforesaid affidavit, it is crystal clear that due to misunderstanding, the respondent No.2 had lodged the FIR and after the misunderstanding was cleared, he had compromised the matter and has stated in the oath that he has no objection if the FIR

¶49

Page No.# 6/6

¶50

and subsequent criminal proceeding arising thereof is quashed.

¶51

In view of the above, for the ends of justice, further continuation against the petitioners is not justified. Accordingly, the FIR dated 05.08.2013, charge-sheet dated 30.09.2015 and subsequent criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.870/2013 arising out of Hailakandi PS Case No.290/2013 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi against the petitioners stands set aside and quashed.

¶52

Resultantly, the criminal petitions stands disposed of.

¶53

Interim order, passed by this Court by order dated 15.05.2017 is hereby made absolute.

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

Comparing Assistant

Mst. Hafija Begum Barbhuiya @ Hajan Bibi and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mst. Hafija Begum Barbhuiya @ Hajan Bibi and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Ind. and 2 Ors. Vs Mrs. Ranjita William

Bhupen Nath Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Suren Ch. Raja Vs Smti Rumi Raja Hazarika and Anr.

M/S Shiv-Van Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smti. Ratna Dusad Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Abhijit Chutia and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.