[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Page No.# 2/4 on 9 February, 2026
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010020182026
2026:GAU-AS:1671
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./153/2026
RAFIKA KHANAM AND 3 ORS.
W/O SHARIF AHMED
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF JUNAKI PATH, WARD NO.2, P.O.AND P.S.
MANGALDAI, DIST. DARRANG,ASSAM, PIN-784125
2: MOSTAFA KAMAL AHMED
S/O SIRAJUDDIN AHMED
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF JUNAKI PATH
WARD NO.2
P.O.AND P.S. MANGALDAI
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-784125
3: MAJIBUN NESSA
W/O SIRAJUDDIN AHMED
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF JUNAKI PATH
WARD NO.2
P.O.AND P.S. MANGALDAI
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-784125
4: SIRAJUDDIN AHMED
S/O LATE ABDUL GONI
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF JUNAKI PATH
WARD NO.2
P.O.AND P.S. MANGALDAI
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-78412
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/4
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M M ZAMAN,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
09.02.2026
Heard Mr. M.M. Zaman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for
quashing the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.2230/2022 (arising out of
Mangaldai P.S. Case No.562/2021).
3. The 48 years old informant in this case is a married woman. The petitioner
Mostafa Kamal Ahmed is her brother-in-law. The petitioner Majibun Nessa is her
mother-in-law and the petitioner Siraj Uddin Ahmed is her father-in-law.
4. On 28.10.2021, the petitioner Mostafa Kamal Ahmed tried to commit rape upon
the informant and tore apart her wearing apparels. However, he failed to commit the
rape upon her. Her husband came running and tried to save her. But her father-in-law
and mother-in-law assaulted her.
5. Today, the informant woman have come together with her relatives and
submitted that they have compromised their dispute and she is no longer interested to
in prosecuting her relatives.
Page No.# 3/4
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
7. 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. 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."
Page No.# 4/4
8. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that under the given
circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners in the case before
the trial court. Therefore, allowing criminal proceedings to continue before the trial
court, would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. This Court is of the
opinion that this is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS,
2023.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings of PRC
Case No.2230/2022 (arising out of Mangaldai P.S. Case No.562/2021), is quashed and
set aside.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
