Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 21 May, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010260902024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1495/2024
MONESWARI BASUMARTY AND ANR
W/O- NARESH BASUMATARY,
R/O- MILAN NAGAR, P.O AND P.S- GOHPUR, DIST- BISWANATH, ASSAM,
PIN-784168
2: ROMEN BASUMATARY
S/O- LATE MAHESH BASUMATARY
R/O- VILLAGE NO-1 GOREHAGA
P.O-MILANPUR
AND P.S- GOHPUR
DIST- BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN-78416
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L GOGOI,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/4
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
21.05.2025
Heard Mr. L. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for
quashing the proceedings of PR Case No.131/2024 arising out of Gohpur P.S. Case
No.52/2024 pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M),
Gohpur, Biswanath, Assam.
3. The 35 year old first petitioner, who is a married woman, had lodged an FIR
before police on 09.04.2024. In the said FIR, she alleged that on 08.04.2024 at about
9.30 at night, the second petitioner entered into her house and forcibly committed
rape upon her.
4. Now, the first petitioner had entered into an agreement with the second
petitioner admitting that no such incident as alleged by the first petitioner actually
took place. The criminal case came into being because of misunderstanding of facts.
By filing the present petition the first petitioner submits that the criminal proceedings
should be quashed and set aside.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
6. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (now
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. Paragraphs 102 and 103 of the
judgment read as under:
Page No.# 3/4
"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.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in
the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
Page No.# 4/4
7. The Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation
and Anr., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, held that when a compromise has been
arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and
allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way
in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise.
8. Coming back to the case in hand, there is no doubt that in the case in hand,
under the given circumstance, there is no possibility of conviction. Therefore, allowing
the criminal proceedings to continue would be nothing but an abuse of the process of
the court.
9. This Court is of the opinion that this a fit case for exercising power under Section
528 of the BNSS, 2023.
10. Accordingly, the proceedings of PR Case No.131/2024 arising out of Gohpur P.S.
Case No.52/2024 pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate
(M), Gohpur, Biswanath, Assam, is quashed and set aside.
The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
