Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010116352025 2025:GAU-AS:7661 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./640/2025 IMRAN HUSSAIN ALIAS IMRAN ALI S/O DURJAN ALI VILL- PIPULBARI PART-IV, P.O.MANULLAPARA, P.S. MANKACHAR, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783135 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:MRS. MOMELA KHATUN W/O IMRAN HUSSAIN VILL- PIPULBARI PART-IV P.O. MANULLAPARA P.S. MANKACHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-78313 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM, MS A KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. M AHMED BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 11.06.2025 Page No.# 2/5 1. Heard earned counsel Mr. M. Islam for the petitioner 'X' who has filed this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing the entire proceeding of Special P Case No. 123/2024 arising out of Mankachar P.S. Case No. 87/2023 corresponding to GR Case No. 136/2023 under Sections 9/10/11 of the PCM Act read with Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. S. H. Bora for the respondent State and learned counsel Mr. M. Ahmed for the respondent No. 2/'Y'. 3. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner was brought up by a 3rd party that the petitioner committed sexual assault on the minor victim 'Y'. It is submitted that the allegation clearly reveals that the victim 'Y' was on the verge of attaining majority as she was 17 years old at the time of the incident. Both the petitioner and the victim are married and they are living peacefully as husband and wife and they are blessed with 1 son. Now the victim has attained majority as she is 20 years old. The victim is not at all willing to proceed against her husband as they are leading a happy married life. 4. Annexure-6 of the petition is the affidavit-cum-declaration by the victim that she was not assaulted by the petitioner. She went with the petitioner on her own volition. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised objection stating that the petitioner is booked under a heinous offence and he is not entitled to relief under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/'Y' has no objection. 6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. Page No.# 3/5 7. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SCC 604, wherein it has been observed that:- “ 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-cognizabile 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. Page No.# 4/5 (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." 12. Reverting to the case in hand, I find that under the given circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction in this case in future. So, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 8. The petitioner has also relied on the decision of this Court in Crl.Pet No. 53/2025, wherein vide order dated 02.05.2025, it has been observed that:- “ This Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down In Bhajan Lal (supra), is applicable in the present case. Since the so-called victim girl has come forward to state that she has been living happily with her husband and she is now a major, In such a circumstance, there is no possibility of conviction of anybody in future. Thus, allowing such a criminal proceeding to continue before a trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. “ 9. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 10. I find force in the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the victim has attained majority and she is not willing to proceed with the case. Thus, it is apparent that the victim will not adduce evidence against her husband as both the petitioner and the victim are leading a happy married life. 11. Possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. Thus, further proceeding will indeed be an abuse of the process of this Court. Page No.# 5/5 The petitioner through her affidavit has denied that the petitioner has committed any offence as alleged. 12. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, the entire proceeding of Special P Case No. 168/2024 is hereby set aside and quashed. 13. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant