[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Aajijur Rahman Alias Ajijul Hoque vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 11 March, 2026
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010047312026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./335/2026
AAJIJUR RAHMAN ALIAS AJIJUL HOQUE
S/O ABUL HUSSAIN
RESIDENT OF VILL- LAOGAO, P.O. SOLMARI,P.S. SADAR
DIST.NAGAON, ASSAM
PIN-782002.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:MD. HAZRAT ALI
S/O LT. MOIJUDDIN
R/O VILL- LAWGAON
P.O. SOLMARI
P.S. RUPAHIHAT
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-78212
Advocate for the Petitioner : J S AHMED,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. KHAIRUL ISLAM(R2),RAFIKA HUSSAIN(R2)
Page No.# 2/4
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
11.03.2026
Heard Mr. J.S. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr.
Khairul Islam, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2.
2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing
the Charge Sheet No.42/2017 arising out of Rupahihat P.S. Case No.26/2016 under
Sections 366A read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act pending in the court of the
Special Judge (POCSO), Nagaon, Assam.
3. On 15.01.2016, the respondent No.2 Md. Hazrat Ali had lodged an FIR before
police alleging that his 16 year old daughter, while she was coming back from college,
was kidnapped by the present petitioner and another person Md. Rahul Amin.
4. During the period of investigation, the victim girl had stated that she was in love
with the present petitioner Ajijul Hoque and therefore eloped with him and got
married to him.
5. Today, Mr. Khairul Islam, learned counsel appearing for Md. Hazrat Ali has
submitted that his daughter is now major and she has been living peacefully with the
present petitioner. Mr. Islam has submitted that the respondent Hazrat Ali has no
interest in prosecuting the petitioner in this case.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
Page No.# 3/4
7. 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:
"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
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."
8. 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.
9. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that under the
given circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction of any person in this case.
Therefore, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court would
be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.
10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this a fit case for exercising power
under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.
11. Accordingly, the Charge Sheet No.42/2017 arising out of Rupahihat P.S. Case
No.26/2016 under Sections 366A read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act pending in the
court of the Special Judge (POCSO), Nagaon, Assam, is quashed and set aside.
The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
