Page No.# 1/4
GAHC020005322023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : Crl. Pet./28/2023
SHRI TEMJENSUBA LONGKUMER
SON OF LT. SHRI TIAYANGER,
VILLAGE CHAKPA VILLAGE,
MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR.
NAGALAND 2:XXXXXX
XXXXXX
DIMAPUR
NAGALAN
Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER
Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
29.02.2024
Date :
Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the peti-
tioner. Also heard Mr. Kevi Angami, learned P.p. Nagaland and
Mr. Supongwati, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Page No.# 2/4
The petitioner has filed this application under section
482 Cr.PC with prayer for quashing the FIR dated 23/3/2022 as
well as Chargesheet No.02/2022 dated 7/9/2022 in GR 28/2022
in connection with Mokokchung Women PS Case No.001/2022
u/s 354/376/506 IPC read with 66 E IT Act.
In the FIRit is stated that the petitioner asked the re-
spondent No.2 to meet her at Mokokchung. The respondent
No.2/informant in good faith agreed to meet him as she got ac-
quainted with the petitioner through facebook. Thereafter, the
petitioner, at gun point took the informant to his store and had
committed sexual assault on the informant. The petitioner then
clicked obscene photographs and threatened to upload the pic-
ture in the social media platform. The respondent No.2/infor-
mant could not muster enough courage to inform her family as
well as law enforcing agency about the incident. Finally, she
lodged the FIR. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the informant did not draft the FIR but only af-
fixed her signature on the FIR.
The respondent No.2/informant has also filed an affi-
davit. It is submitted the the respondent No.2/informant has no
objection if the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding based on
the FIR is set aside and quashed. Both the parties i.e the peti-
tioner and the respondents have reconciled and they are in live-
in relationship with the blessings of their respective families.
I have heard the learned P.P.
I have considered the peculiar facts and circum-
stances of the case. I have also considered the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant was
Page No.# 3/4
forced to lodged the FIR by her earlier fiancée. It is also submit-
ted on behalf of the petitioner that the informant was earlier en-
gaged to another person but at the same time it is admitted that
they were in relationship and at present both the petitioner and
the respondent No.2/informant are staying together. An addi-
tional affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
Through the additional affidavit, the petitioner has submitted
that at present the respondent No.2/informant is pregnant and
the petitioner is the father of the child. The petitioner is also tak-
ing care of the medical treatment of the informant.
I have also considered the affidavit on behalf of the
respondent No.2/informant wherein it is submitted that the re-
spondent No.2 and the petitioner is starting a family together.
The petitioner has also relied on the decision passed by this
Court in the case of Jahirul Maulana @ Jahirul Islam vs State of
Assam & Ors reported in 2016 4 GLT 460 wherein it has been
that :-
“9. The victim has become an adult in the meantime.
She has been happily residing with the petitioner as his legally
married wife with a child in her lap. Under the given circum-
stances, the ends of justice will demand that they should be left
at their will and their otherwise happily married life should not
be allowed to be disturbed by the interfering clouds of litigations
looming over their heads. In that view of the matter, since
chances of conviction in the case is bleak in view of the compro-
mise between the parties and marriage between the petitioner
and the opposite party No.3, no useful purpose shall be served
Page No.# 4/4
by dragging them to Court anymore and to compel the wit-
nesses to come at the expense of the valuable judicial time.”
After considering the submissions it is apparent that
possibility of conviction appears to be bleak. Both the parties are
staying together and the respondent No.2/informant is pregnant
and she has started a family with the petitioner. Further pro-
ceeding will indeed be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Considering all these aspects I deem it proper to
quash the FIR dated 23/3/2022 as well as Chargesheet
No.02/2022 dated 7/9/2022 and proceedings of GR 28/2022
connection with Mokokchung Women PS Case No.001/2022 u/s
354/376/506 IPC read with 66 E IT Act.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant