Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010087482025 2025:GAU-AS:5512 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./514/2025 ABDUL RAHIM S/O ABDUL KARIM R/O RATANPUR TEA ESTATE (BAGAN) P.O.AND P.S. SONARI PIN-785690 DIST. CHARAIDEO, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAN AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SRI BABUL DEBNATH S/O LATE ARUN DEBNATH R/O TEOK GAON P.S. SONARI PIN CODE-785690 DIST. CHARAIDEO ASSAM 3:SHELLY BEGUM D/O ABDUL AZIZ W/O ABDUL RAHIM R/O RATANPUR TEA ESTATE (BAGAN) P.O. AND P.S. SONARI PIN-785690 DIST. CHARAIDEO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN, P ADHIKARI,MR. A UDDIN Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, P SHARMA (R-3) :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 05.05.2025 Heard Mr. G. Uddin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Ms. Punam Sharma, learned counsel Representing Respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 582 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of Special (POCSO) Case No.01/2024 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, Charaideo. 3. The informant Babul Debnath had lodged an FIR before police alleging that the petitioner Abdul Rohim had married a minor girl, being the Respondent No.2. 4. Abdul Rohim has stated that his wife, the Respondent No.2 was born on 01.03.2005. A Birth Certificate has also been filed in support of his case. He claimed that since his marriage, in the year 2023, he and the Respondent No.2 have been living peacefully. The couple has also been blessed with a child who was born on 20.06.2023. 5. Ms. Poonam Sharma appearing for the Respondent No.2 has submitted that the Respondent No.2 has been living peacefully with Abdul Rohim and they are now happily living together with their child. 6. Mr. Uddin has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2025) SCC Page No.# 3/4 OnLine SC 614. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 8. 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 Page No.# 4/4 grudge.” 9. Coming back to the case in hand, it appears that this is a hair line case so far as the age of the Respondent No.2 at the time of her marriage with Abdul Rohim. Moreover, since the Respondent No,2 herself has submitted that she is now living peacefully along with her husband and child, this Court does not see any future conviction in this case. So, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 10. This Court is the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The criminal petition is allowed. 11. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings of Special (POCSO) Case No.01/2024 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, Charaideo, is quashed and set aside. The criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant