[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Md Muktar Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 27 March, 2026
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010064112026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./457/2026
MD MUKTAR AHMED
SON OF MD. BODIAR ALI
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 42, F.A. AHMED NAGAR, NO. 2 MOTHGHARIA,
P.O. AND P.S. NOONMATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), PIN-781020
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:MD. MRIDUL ALI
SON OF ARAB ALI
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 17
BHASKAR NAGAR
P.O.AND P.S. CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI CENTRAL
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, P MAZUMDAR,MR. M S HUSSAIN,MR. D K
BAIDYA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, A MISHRA(R2),SAMIM RAHMAN(R2),MR. A
TARAFDAR(R2),MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ(R2)
Page No.# 2/4
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
27.03.2026
Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Baidya, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, the
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned counsel
representing the Respondent No.2.
2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing
the FIR in respect of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No.324/2025.
3. For the last 3 years, 16 year old daughter of the informant was undergoing
training in Judo at Nehru Stadium, Paltan Bazar. The present petitioner is the Judo
Coach. It is alleged in the FIR that the present petitioner, on the pretext of giving
massage to the body of the girl, touched her chest inappropriately. After 2 days of the
said incident, the girl informed her father about the said occurrence.
4. Today, both the father of the girl and the present petitioner have come together
to this Court stating that the informant had lodged the FIR because of
misunderstanding of facts. The father of the girl has stated that his daughter had
informed him that the present petitioner had not had any inappropriate intention while
giving her body massage. The father of the girl has admitted that the act of the
petitioner does not attract Section 75(2)/115(2) of the BNS, 2023 or Section 10 of the
POCSO Act.
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 has
Page No.# 3/4
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."
7. 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 petitioner in the case before
Page No.# 4/4
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.
8. Accordingly, the FIR in respect of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No.324/2025, is quashed
and set aside.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
