Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 8 January, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010002982025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./13/2025
ROMIZ ALI @ ROMEZ ALI AND ANR
S/O SAIFUL ISLAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FEKAMARI, PS SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR,
DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM
2: NILA BANU KHATUN
W/O ROMIZ ALI @ ROMEZ ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FEKAMARI
PS SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY PP ASSAM
2:ABUL KASHEM
S/O ABDUL JOBBER
RESIDENT OF KHARUABANDHA
PS SOUTH SALMARA
DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM 78313
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Z AHMED, MR. A KHALEK
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/4
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
08.01.2025
Heard Mr. A.Z. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard
Mr. R.R. Kaushik, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State.
2. This is a joint application under Section 482 of the CrPC, praying for quashing of the
Special POCSO Case No.159/2024 pending in the court of Special Judge, South Salmara,
Mankachar arising out of South Salmara P.S. Case No.304/2023.
3. A girl just a few days below 18 years of age was in love with the present petitioner
Romiz Ali @ Romez Ali. They had eloped and got married.
4. A stranger lodged an FIR before police alleging that a minor girl was married to the
petitioner Romiz Ali @ Romez Ali and thereby violated the provisions of Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act.
5. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet.
6. Now, both Romiz Ali @ Romez Ali and his wife who is now 19 years old has come to
this court and jointly filed the present petition stating that they are living peacefully and they
are already blessed with a child. The girl has stated that she had eloped with Romiz Ali @
Romez Ali, subsequently married him and now she is living happily with him.
7. Mr. Kaushik submits that since it is a case under the provision of POCSO Act, notice to
the informant has to be sent.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
9. This petition has been filed jointly by the girl and the boy. The informant is a stranger.
Serving notice upon him would be nothing but an abuse of the court.
10. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (now
Page No.# 3/4
Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 ) has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 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 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."
11. Reverting to the case in hand, I find that under the given circumstances of the case,
there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. So, allowing the criminal proceeding to
continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.
12. This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section
482 of the CrPC. The criminal petition is allowed.
13. Accordingly, the Special POCSO Case No.159/2024 pending in the court of Special
Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar arising out of South Salmara P.S. Case No.304/2023, is
quashed and set aside.
Page No.# 4/4
The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
