Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010132982025 2025:GAU-AS:9266 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./715/2025 RAFIKUL ISLAM @ ROFIKUL ISLAM S/O- JALU SHEIKH, R/O-VILL.-CHOUTARA, P.S.-CHHAYGAON, DIST.-KAMRUP(RURAL), ASSAM, PIN-781137. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:BASIRAN NESSA W/O-FAJOL HOQUE R/O-VILL.-CHOUTARA P.S.-CHHAYGAON DIST.-KAMRUP(R) ASSAM PIN-781137 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M I HUSSAIN, R KHA,N. UDDIN,MS. P AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. K M HASSAN (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 18.07.2025 Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing Respondent No.1 as well as Ms. S. Nazneen, 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 FIR dated 07.12.2020, which was registered as Chhaygaon P.S. Case No.1222/2020. 3. In the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2, it was alleged that the petitioner was offering obscene proposals to her to maintain physical relationship. On 28.12.2020 at about 1.30 A.M. at night, while the husband of the Respondent No.2 was absent from house, the petitioner forcibly entered into her house and committed sexual intercourse with her by showing a dagger. When the Respondent No.2 raised hue and cry over the incident, the petitioner ran away. 4. Now, the Respondent No.2 has even sworn an affidavit stating that she has settled the dispute with the petitioner. 5. By filing the present petition, the Respondent No.2 had reiterated the stand. 6. Ms. Nazneen has submitted that the Respondent No.2 has no objection if the criminal proceeding is quashed. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. Page No.# 3/4 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 grudge.” 9. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that under the given Page No.# 4/4 circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction of any person. 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. The criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR dated 07.12.2020, which was registered as Chhaygaon P.S. Case No.1222/2020, is quashed and set aside. The criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant