Sambhu Puri vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 3292 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Sambhu Puri vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 19 February, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                       Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010175052024




                                                                undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.Pet./1061/2024

            SAMBHU PURI
            S/O LATE BIKRAMA PURI, R/O SAFI CHAPRA, P.S.-BARHARIA, DIST-
            SIWAN, BIHAR



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

            2:KULA GOGOI
             S/O LATE JUGEN GOGOI
             R/O BOSAGOAN
             NEAR WATER SUPPLY
             P.S.-GELAKY
             DIST- SIVASAGAR
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR B SHARMA, MR S SHARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. P DEKA (R-2)
                                                                            Page No.# 2/5




                                    :: BEFORE ::
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                     O R D E R

19.02.2025

Heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing Respondent No.1.Heard Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing the criminal proceedings relating to Special (P) Case No.22/2024 arising out of Geleky P.S. Case No.29/2023 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar.

3. A person called Sri Kula Gogoi had lodged an FIR before police on 18.07.2023 wherein it was alleged that his 15 year old son was sexually abused by the present petitioner.

4. The young boy made a statement under Section 164 of the CrPC wherein he has stated that on 13.07.2023, the present petitioner invited him to his room. Accordingly, he went there, watched T.V. for some time. Thereafter, he slept with the present petitioner. At about 10 P.M., the young boy suddenly waked up from his sleep and saw that his pent and underwear were removed and the petitioner was also in the same condition. Apprehending danger, the young boy managed to leave the place that night. The young boy immediately informed a person called Rabi about the said occurrence. The boy also informed Mintu Konwar, who in turn, informed the father of Page No.# 3/5

the victim boy. Accordingly, the father of the boy lodged an FIR before police.

5. After conclusion of investigation, police field the charge sheet against the present petitioner.

6. The informant i.e. the father of the young boy filed the affidavit-in-opposition in this case wherein he has stated that on 10.12.2024, he had sworn an affidavit before Notary at Sivasagar and he has claimed that no criminal incident between the petitioner and his son ever took place. He also claimed that he had lodged the FIR on being instigated by certain individuals who had personal disagreements with the petitioner.

7. The Respondent No.2 has clearly stated that no such incident as claimed in the said FIR actually took place and the present petitioner is an innocent person. The Respondent No.2 even brought on record the affidavit which he had sworn before the Notary at Sivasagar.

8. Mr. Sharma has pointed out that young boy had named two persons in his statement under Section 164 of the CrPC and those two persons are not made witnesses by the Investigating Officer.

9. Mr. Das has expressed his objection to the petition filed by the petitioner and submitted that the offence alleged against the present petitioner is a non- compoundable offence and in this case, the parties involved seem to have compromised the matter.

10. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has submitted that the criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed because the FIR was lodged because some people having enmity with the present petitioner had put pressure upon the informant.

11. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

12. In this case, the informant himself has claimed that no such incident has alleged Page No.# 4/5

in his FIR actually took place. He claimed that the FIR was lodged on being pressurized by some persons who had enmity with the present petitioner.

13. The statement of the victim boy shows that immediately after the occurrence, he had informed two persons about the incident and one of them had informed the Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.2 had lodged the FIR after that.

14. Those two persons are not shown as prosecution witnesses in this case.

15. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. BhajanLal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Page No.# 5/5

Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

16. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction in this case. Therefore, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

17. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The criminal petition is allowed.

18. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings relating to Special (P) Case No.22/2024 arising out of Geleky P.S. Case No.29/2023 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, is quashed and set aside.

The criminal petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant