Gauhati High Court
Crl.Pet./1516/2024 on 13 May, 2025
1
GAHC010266132024
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRL. PET. NO. 1516/2024
1. Madhab Krishna Goswami
S/O Late Subham Goswami
R/O Villiage - Borpathar P.O.
Khaduripathar P.S. Silapathar
District-Dhemaji, Assam
Pin Code-781301.
....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam
Represented by the learned Public Prosecutor,
Assam.
2. Pramila Kanta Garh
D/O Babulal Garh
R/O Chowkham Gaon Saboti
P.S. North Lakhimpur
P.O. Saboti North Lakhimpur
Pin Code- 787001
District-Lakhimpur Assam.
.....Respondents
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 1
2
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Majumdar, Advocate
For Respondent (s) : Mr. K. Baishya, Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr. S. Gogoi, Advocate (R. No.2)
Date of Judgment : 13.05.2025
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT
(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.)
1. Heard Mr. R. Majumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State of Assam. Also heard Mr. S. Gogoi, the
learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.
2. This application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by
the petitioner, namely, Sri Madhab Krishna Goswami, praying for
quashing of the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No. 100/2023,
pending before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate(M), Jonai. The aforesaid PRC Case was registered on the
filing of the charge-sheet, after completion of the investigation which
was initiated after filing of an FIR by the victim girl on 25.03.2023.
On the basis of the said FIR, the Simen Chapori P.S. Case No.
14/2023 was registered under Sections 376(2)(k)/376(2)(n)/509 of
the Indian Penal Code.
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 2
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Criminal Petition,
in brief, are that on 22.03.2023, the victim girl, hereinafter referred
to as "X", had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Simen
Chapori Police Station. In the said FIR, it has been alleged that the
victim/first informant, was a resident/student of Sri Sri Sewa Ashram
situated at Silapathar of Dhemaji District, since she was four years of
age. It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioner, who was the head
of the Director of Sewa Ashram, by showing on various pretexts,
used the victim girl as housemaid to look after his disabled child.
4. It is also alleged that on various pretexts, the petitioner arranged
the stay of the victim girl in a hotel. In the month of January-
February of year 2023, she was sexually assaulted and raped by the
petitioner every night. It is also stated in the FIR that finding no way
out on 27.02.2023, at around 7.00 a.m., the victim girl boarded
Silapathar- Uttar Lakhimpur train and returned to her house at
Chaboti Choukham village. It is also alleged that subsequently, the
son and daughter of the petitioner visited the residence of the victim
girl at her village and threatened to lodge an FIR against her
brother. It is also alleged in the FIR that in the year 2018, the
petitioner tried to sexually harass another girl of Sri Sri Sewa Ashram
and a case was registered against him. The victim girl has also
stated in the FIR in the same case to save the petitioner, that the
wife of the petitioner forced the victim girl to lodge an FIR against
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 3
one Girish Saikia. It is also stated in the FIR that the FIR lodged
against Girish Saikia is completely false.
5. On receipt of the said FIR, Simen Chapori P.S. Case No. 14/2023
was registered and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, after
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid bearing charge-
sheet No. 33/2023 dated 31.10.2023 under Sections 376
(2)(k)/376(2)(n)/509 of the Indian Penal Code against the present
petitioner. In the charge- sheet, 12 numbers of prosecution
witnesses are listed for proving the prosecution case. In addition to
that, 21 numbers of documentary evidence are also listed in the
charge sheet for proving the prosecution case.
6. Mr. R. Mujumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case
and he is not involved in the offence which has been alleged in the
charge- sheet. He has also submitted that the petitioner is an
innocent person and has been made a scapegoat of vengeance by
one Shri Girish Saikia, at whose behest this false case has been
lodged.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is a Social Worker of Dhemaji District and is actively
involved in various social activities relating to welfare of children,
particularly destitute children. It is submitted that to serve the
destitute children, he has also founded an NGO by the name and
style of Sri Sri Sewa Ashram at Village Borpathar in the District of
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 4
Dhemaji. The said NGO has been registered under Section 34(3) of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that seeing the
progress and reputation of the petitioner's NGO, one Girish Saikia of
his village claiming himself to be a Member of Krishak Mukti
Sangram Samiti, (KMSS) often used to demand money and used to
threaten the petitioner of damaging his reputation.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on an
earlier occasion also, the said Girish Saikia in conspiracy with his
wife and three others had lodged an FIR against the present
petitioner on 08.01.2018. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the said FIR was false and fabricated, in which, it
was alleged that the petitioner has committed rape on another
inmate of his Ashram, namely, "Y" (the real name concealed to
protect the identity of the victim). He submits that on the basis of
the said FIR Silapathar P.S. Case No. 12/2018 was registered under
Sections 354/376/501/511 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said case
the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and it was
registered as Sessions Case No. 22/2018 before the Court of the
learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji. The petitioner faced the trial in
the said case. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that as the case lodged against the petitioner was a false
case, he was acquitted by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge,
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 5
Dhemaji by its judgment and order dated 21.11.2018, passed in
Sessions Case No.22/2018.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the
victim girl of the present case had also lodged an FIR against the
said Girish Saikia in the month of February 2018 and on the basis of
the said FIR, Silapathar P. S. Case No.79/2018 was registered. On
completion of the investigation, chargesheet was laid in Special
POCSO Case No. 32/2018. The said case is still pending before the
Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji against said Girish
Saikia.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in Special
POCSO Case No. 32/2018, while deposing as a witness, the victim of
the present case has categorically stated that she was raped and
sexually assaulted by Girish Saikia. However, in the instant case, in
the FIR, she has stated that the allegations made by her against
Girish Saikia are not true. This act of taking contradictory stand by
the victim girl, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
makes her unworthy of any credence and diminishes her credibility
in the instant case, wherein she has alleged commission of rape by
the present petitioner.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the
instant case, the petitioner is on bail granted by the Court of the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai. He submits that
prior to that the petitioner was also granted anticipatory bail by a
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 6
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the A B Case No. 1345/2023 on
28.04.2023, on the ground that the accusations made against the
petitioner are not believable.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
allegations in the instant case (PRC Case No. 100/2023) against the
petitioner are false, concocted and on the basis of a fabricated FIR
and, therefore, he submits that the charge-sheet and the
proceedings of PRC Case No. 100/2023 should be quashed as
continuation of the said proceeding would be abuse of the process
of laws and wastage of valuable time of the Court. He also submits
that in the instant case, the FIR has been lodged against him at the
behest of Girish Sarkia only with the purpose of wreaking vengeance
on him.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has
been no material in the charge-sheet or in the statement of any of
the witnesses in this case, which would connect the petitioner with
the accusations made against him in this case. He, therefore,
submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings of PRC Case
No. 100/2023 would only amount to needless harassment to the
petitioner.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of
the present petitioner falls within the parameter Nos.1, 2, 5 and 7 as
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana
and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in (1992)
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 7
Suppl.1 SCC 335 and, therefore, the proceeding of PRC Case No.
100/2023 should be quashed.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the
instant case against the present petitioner is manifestly frivolous and
vexatious and has been instituted with the ulterior motive of
wreaking vengeance and, therefore, this Court owes a duty to quash
the criminal proceeding against him for the ends of justice. In
support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
also cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Mahmood Ali
and Others Vs. State of UP and Others (Criminal Appeal
No.2341/2023 dated 8th August 2023).
17. On the other hand, Shri K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, has opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings
of PRC Case No. 100/2023. He submits that in the instant case, the
victim girl has herself implicated the petitioner in her statement
recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. He also submits that the Investigating Officer, after
conducting thorough investigation, has found sufficient materials
against the present petitioner and accordingly, charge-sheet has
been laid citing therein the witnesses and the materials on the basis
of which, the prosecution intends to prove this case and, therefore,
this is not a case covered under any of the parameters laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs.
Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others (Supra).
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 8
18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the
power of quashing of the proceedings, after laying of the
charge-sheet, should be exercised very sparingly only if there are
no materials against the accused on record, which is not the case in
the instant case. Hence, he prays for dismissing the instant criminal
petition.
19. Mr. S. Gogoi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also
vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the
criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.100/2023. He submits that
there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present
petitioner on record. He has produced the certified copy of the
statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as her medical examination
report and submits that there are sufficient materials implicating the
present petitioner. He, therefore, submits that this is not a case,
where the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to quash the criminal
proceedings should be exercised.
20. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both the sides and have carefully gone through the materials
available on record.
21. In the instant case, in the FIR, which has been lodged by the victim
girl herself, categorical accusation has been made by her against the
present petitioner that she was raped by the petitioner on several
occasions while she was kept in a hotel by the petitioner in the
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 9
month of January and February 2023. In fact, in the FIR, it has been
stated that during her stay at the hotel, the victim was raped by the
present petitioner on every night.
22. After lodging of the FIR, the investigation was initiated and during
investigation, sufficient materials has been collected against the
present petitioner and, accordingly, the charge-sheet was laid
against him showing 12 numbers of listed prosecution witnesses
including the victim girl in the said charge sheet.
23. It also appears that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the victim girl has vividly
explained as to how she was raped by the present petitioner. In her
medical examination report, though, no injury was found on her
person, however, her hymen was found ruptured which may be
indicative of the fact that she was subjected to sexual intercourse.
24. It also appears that after filing of the charge-sheet, on several
occasions, the PRC Case No. 100/2023 was fixed for appearance of
the present petitioner before the said Court. However, on one or
other pretext, the petitioner has not appeared before the said Court
and the case is still pending at the stage of furnishing of copies
under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the
petitioner.
25. Though, the power of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
are wide powers, however, in exercise of such powers, quashing of
the criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 10
circumspection as has been observed in several rulings of the Apex
Court that such powers are to be exercised in the rarest of rare
cases, where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice.
26. Merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in an earlier case
i.e., Sessions Case No.22/2018 filed by another victim girl of the
same NGO, it cannot be assumed that this time also the accusation
against him has been made by the present victim girl falsely at the
behest of some other person when there are categorical accusations
made against him in the FIR as well as in the statement under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the victim
girl that she was subjected to rape by the present petitioner on
several occasions.
27. The Apex Court has observed in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs.
Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 that Court
should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations,
as made from the records of the case and the documents submitted
therewith prima facie establishes the offence or not. If the
allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the
basic ingredients of criminal offence are not satisfied, then, the
Court may interfere. However, in the instant case, the facts and
circumstances are not such. In the instant case there are prima facie
incriminating materials against the petitioners of having committed
rape on the victim girl.
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 11
28. At this stage, this Court is not to consider as to whether there are
sufficient materials or not on the basis of which the case would end
in a conviction or not. The Court is concerned primarily with the
allegations taken as a whole as to whether they will constitute the
offence and if so, is it in any manner an abuse of process of Court
in continuing with the trial leading to injustice. In the instant case,
the victim girl having made categorical accusations against the
present petitioner in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, this case is not a case where there is no
material against the petitioner.
29. In the instant case, the FIR has not been filed by Girish Saikia,
whom the petitioner has alleged to be behind filing of this case
rather it has been filed by the victim herself making categorical
accusations against the petitioner. By merely stating that it is Girish
Saikia, who with an ulterior motive of wrecking vengeance has
instituted this case would not be enough to quash the proceeding of
PRC Case No. 100/2023 when there are prima facie materials
against the present petitioner on record.
30. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that this is not a
fit case where the inherent powers of this Court may be exercised
for quashing of the proceedings of PRC Case No. 100/2023 as it
would not serve the ends of justice. Rather the ends of justice would
be served if the said PRC Case No. 100/23 is allowed to reach its
logical conclusion after full trial.
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 12
31. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Criminal
Petition is dismissed.
32. Registry shall send a copy of this order to the court of learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate(M), Jonai.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Crl.Pet. No. 1516/2024 Page 13
