Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010152292024 2025:GAU-AS:11332 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./891/2024 ANAND DEB S/O SRI SADHAN DEB R/O VILL- RAM NAGAR, TARAPUR, PART-II, P.O. BANGLAGHAT P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788003 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:AMRUL ISLAM LASKAR S/ MANOHAR ALI LASKAR R/O VILL- GOSSAIPUR 3RD PART P.O. GOSSAIPUR P.S. UDHARBOND DIST. CACHAR- 78803 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S KANUNGOE, MS. J CHETTRY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Date : 18-08-2025 Page No.# 2/6 1. The instant Criminal Petition invoking section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of Juvenile Justice Proceeding - JR Case No. 81/2022 pending before the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as JJB), Cachar, Silchar. The petitioner is not only agrieved by the present juvenile proceeding but also by the charge-sheet dated 25.5.2009 filed against him after investigation of Silchar PS case No. 2190/2008 and also by the act of the learned JJB summoning him to face the proceeding. 2. Heard Ms. S Kanungo, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also heard D.P.Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. S. Das, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2/informant. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant on 20.10.2008 lodged an ejahar that his brother Patha Uddin Laskar had ambassador car bearing registration number AS11C5189 and he had gone to Sadarghat Taxi stand for hiring his vehicle. It is further alleged that subsequently, they came to know that at 12pm when the car reached Rongpur the unknown boy attacked his brother and left the car and that his brother expired at the place of occurrence. 4. On the basis of the ejahar, Silchar PS Case No. 2190 of 2008 was registered under section 302 IPC and case was investigated. During investigation, the present petitioner aged 16 years at that time was apprehended and forwarded as a juvenile. The investigation eventually resulted in a charge-sheet dated 25.05.2009 against petitioner under section 302 IPC. However, the proceeding commenced before the learned JJB on 20.12.2022 only. The learned JJB vide order of the same date, took cognizance and summoned the accused petitioner as CCL. Page No.# 3/6 5. Thirteen witnesses are listed in the charge-sheet and so far two witnesses have been examined. One witness, Aside Ali Laskar stated to have expired. Received the original TCR as well as the case diary. 6. Since the petitioner is seeking quashing of the entire proceedings and the charge sheet; first, it remains to be seen whether the original ejahar is a case of prima facie not making out any offence. In this context, upon carefully perusing the ejahar again I find that the present petitioner or for that matter, no person is named in the ejahar. But it cannot be said that the allegations in the ejahar taken on the face value, do not make out any offense whatsoever, especially, the offense of hurt/homicide. Next, this Court exercising inherent powers has to see as to whether the Investigating Officer on the basis of the materials collected during investigation, was justified in submitting charge-sheet against the present petitioner. 7. For this purpose, I find that during investigation, the IO examined six witnesses. The case diary reveals that during investigation, the alleged unknown boy, who was later implicated as the present petitioner, was recovered from a paddy field in an unconscious condition along with a knife. Witness, Asif Ali, examined during the investigation stated that he heard the shouts of the victim in the vehicle and thereafter, saw one boy running away from that place of occurrence with a knife in his hand. It is further submitted that another witness, Rahul Amin, examined by the IO also stated on similar lines. However, witness Bablu Bor Laskar stated in his statement that he saw the unknown boy running in the paddy field and assaulting himself with a knife. 8. The powers of a Court exercising inherent power under Section 482 to decide the question of quashing the filing of a charge-sheet are well settled. If the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation do not Page No.# 4/6 even name or implicate the accused in any manner, in that situation, the Investigating Officer would certainly not be justified in sending up a person for trial. However, if the investigation finds reasonable prima facie materials against the accused, then the investigating officer would be within his jurisdiction to send up the person for trial. 9. Needless to say that there will be scrutiny at the level of the court while taking cognizance and thereafter, another level of scrutiny at the stage of charge or offense explanation. 10. In the instant case, in view of the materials revealed by the investigation as narrated above and which does not need repetition here - I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the Investigating Officer was completely unjustified in filing the charge-sheet against the present accused petitioner. Similarly, from the materials on which the learned JJB was pleased to take cognizance, it also cannot be said that the said order was erroneous and without any basis. 11. The proceeding before the learned JJB is in progress and as already stated, two witnesses have been examined. 12. In the present circumstances and in backdrop of above discussion, I have not found sufficient merit to exercise powers under 520 BNSS 2023 to quash the entire proceeding before the learned JJB , Silchar including the charge sheet dated 25.5.2009. 13. However, I find considerable force in the contention of the learned petitioner counsel that for an incident allegedly having taken place in 2008, the petitioner is still facing a criminal proceeding. At the time of the incident, he was stated to be aged about 16 years as per the forwarding report. The learned Page No.# 5/6 counsel submits that he is presently 31 years and the continuance of the proceeding even at this stage has caused him prejudice in life. 14. Right from that leading decisions in Hussainara Khatoon & others vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98 the right to speedy trial has been held to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any accused in a criminal proceeding is entitled to have the presumption of innocence in his favour which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution and he is entitled to have the criminal proceedings decided expeditiously within the limits of our existing system. 15. It is well settled that prolonged pendency of a criminal litigation prejudices the accused and dilutes, if not violates his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any pendency of a criminal proceeding, at the very least, can cause some disability or at least disadvantages for the accused and therefore, also the right to speedy trial assumes importance. 16. In this case, though charge-sheet was filed within a year of the initiation of investigation, but the matter came up before the learned JJB for the first time only in December/2022. Thereafter, the proceeding has been continuing before the learned JJB, Silchar. 17. In the given facts and circumstances, though the court did not find merit in the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the proceeding; but it is necessary in the interest of justice that the existing criminal proceeding is completed expeditiously. Therefore, the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Cachar, Silchar is requested to expeditiously complete the inquiry proceedings, preferably within 31.12.2025. 18. The instant criminal petition stands disposed of; however, subject to the Page No.# 6/6 aforesaid directions regarding completion of the juvenile proceedings. 19. The petitioner shall appear before the learned JJB, Cachar, Silchar within 2nd week of September, 2025 for receiving further orders from the learned JJB. JUDGE Comparing Assistant