Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010109812025 2025:GAU-AS:7443 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./608/2025 GULSHAN AHMED ALIAS GULSAN AHMED ALIAS JIYESHI SON OF ATABUR ROHMAN, VILL- HOWAITHONG, .S. DHOLAI, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SAJNA BIBI MAZUMDER W/O ABDUL KAYUM MAZUMDER VILL- SAYEDBOND PART-II P.O. MOHANUR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MR. B SAHARIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS A BEGUM (R-2),MS S R MAZARBHUIYA(R-2) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 06.06.2025 Heard learned counsel, Mr A M Barbhuiyan, for the petitioner, Gulshan Ahmed @ Gulsan Ahmed @ Jiyeshi, who has filed this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, Page No.# 2/4 2023, with prayer for setting aside and quashing the impugned proceeding of GR Case No. 54/2020, corresponding to PRC Case No. 55/2020, arising out of Algapur PS Case No. 9/2020, under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr D P Goswami, appearing on behalf of the State respondent, who has raised objection, stating that this case has been registered under Sections 376/506 IPC, with serious allegations and charge sheet has also been laid against the petitioner, under the aforementioned sections of law. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the petitioner has been shown as an absconder in the charge sheet and he is not entitled to any relief. 3. Heard Ms S R Mazarbhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-‘X’, who has submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, is not willing to proceed against the petitioner. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this is an old pending case. The date of the alleged incident is 16.12.2019 and the complaint case was filed on 06.01.2020, which was finally registered as FIR No. 9/2020. The delay has been overlooked by the Investigating Officer, while submitting the charge sheet against the appellant, but the Investigating Officer, after preliminary investigation, could assume that a false case with fabricated story was brought up against the petitioner, but as the offence alleged was of serious nature, the Investigating Officer had to submit the charge sheet. 5. It is further submitted that the victim approached the Investigating Officer and Page No.# 3/4 requested him, not to proceed with the case, but as this case is non-compoundable, the Investigating Officer had to proceed with the investigation till its conclusion. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in K Moni Mohan Singha @ Moni Mohan Singha -Vs- State of Assam and Another., wherein in an application under Section 482 of the CrPC, the PRC Case No. 1018/2023, arising out of GR Case No. 2188/2020, corresponding to Kachudaram PS Case No. 53/2020, under Section 376 IPC, was set aside and quashed. While setting aside and quashing the impugned order in Criminal Petition No. 1092/2023, it was observed by the coordinate Bench that- “Law was laid down way back by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and anr. Vs- Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & ors, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, that a proceeding may be quashed, if the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. This is because otherwise the parties and the witnesses will be dragged to court and process of the Court will be abused for no purpose. When the parties have already entered into compromise, even if they are dragged to court as witnesses, there is every likelihood of their turning back from the allegations and in that event, the learned Court will be left with no other alternative, but to acquit the accused person. In that event, there will be unnecessary engagement of valuable judicial time and so taking a practical view of the matter, it appears to be proper to accept the reality and to put an end to the ongoing litigation.” 7. Reverting back to this case, it is held that both the parties are represented and it is submitted on behalf of the both the parties that both the parties have amicably settled Page No.# 4/4 this case. Although this case is relating to a serious offence, the possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. Further proceeding will indeed be an abuse of the process of the Court and will serve no purpose. Even if the parties are directed to appear before the Court as witnesses, there is every possibility that the witnesses will retract from their allegations and the learned Court will be left with no other alternative, but to acquit the accused person. Trial has also not commenced in this case and at the initial stage, both the parties have settled their dispute. 8. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, I deem it appropriate to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, and quash the proceedings and thereby, further proceedings of GR Case No. 54/2020, corresponding to PRC Case No. 55/2020, arising out of Algapur PS Case No. 9/2020, under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is hereby set aside and quashed. 9. In view of the above observations, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant