Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 24 February, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010030782025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./198/2025
MOSTAFIJUR RAHMAN AND 3 ORS
SON OF OSMAN GONI, RESIDENT OF BANGALPARA TAPABARI, P.O.
TOPABARI, P.S. HAJO, SUB DISTRICT HAJO, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM,
781102, IS THE INFORMANT
2: JIAUR RAHMAN @ JIAUR HOQUE
S/O SABER ALI
R/O HAJO MILPARA ROAD
TAPABARI PANDIT NEHRU LPS
TAPABARI
P.O. TOPABARI
P.S. HAJO
SUB- DISTRICT HAJO
DIST.KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781102
3: ABAJALUR RAHMAN
S/O SATTAR ALI
R/O TAPABARI
P.S. HAJO
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781102.
4: SATTAR ALI @ ABDUL SATTAR
S/O MAJIBOR RAHMAN
R/O TAPABARI
P.S. HAJO
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-78110
Page No.# 2/4
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N RAY, N N HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
24.02.2025
Heard Mr. N. Ray, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard
Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing Respondent
No.1.
2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for
quashing the criminal proceedings relating to the Charge Sheet No.372/2021 dated
30.09.2021 arising out of Hajo P.S. case No.1132/2021 pending in the court of the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hajo, Kamrup, Assam.
3. The petitioner Mostafizur Rahman had lodged an FIR before police alleging that
on 17.07.2021 at about 5 P.M., while he was going home, he was stopped by the
petitioner Jiaur Hoque, son of Sober Ali; Abbas Ali, son of Sattar Ali and Abdul Sattar,
son of Majiubar Rahman. It is alleged that all these three persons had attacked him
with sharp weapons, iron rods, sticks etc. Somehow, he managed to escape.
4. Now, the informant/petitioner Mostafizur Rahman has submitted that his
attackers belong to good family and are without any criminal background. The
informant claimed that he has compromised the matter with those persons.
Page No.# 3/4
5. While filing the present petition, the petitioners have annexed one order passed
by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. By that order, the
aforementioned attackers were granted bail. In the said order, it is mentioned that the
informant/victim sustained one swelling over his head and no other significant injury
were sustained by him. The court of the Assistant Sessions Judge also held that the
Case Diary revealed that no weapon was used by the attackers.
6. The informant submits that some of the offences for which the charge sheet has
been filed are non-compoundable and that is the reason why the present petition has
to be filed. The informant submits that if the offences alleged were compoundable, he
would not have come to this Court.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
8. From the materials available with the case record, it can be opined that there are
no prima facie materials under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4.
9. 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
Page No.# 4/4
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
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."
10. Under the given circumstances, this Court is of the opinion, 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.
11. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The
criminal petition is allowed.
12. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings relating to the Charge Sheet No.372/2021
dated 30.09.2091 arising out of Hajo P.S. case No.1132/2021 pending in the court of
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hajo, Kamrup, Assam, is quashed and set aside.
The criminal petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
