Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010242602018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1084/2018 SAIDUL HOQUE BARBHUIYA S/O- NAZIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA, R/O- VILL- BAGPUR PART-I, P.O. BAGPUR, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY P.P., ASSAM 2:SRI IZAJ AHMED CHOUDHURY S/O- NIZAM UDDIN CHOUDHURY R/O- VILL- BAGPUR PART-I P.O. BAGPUR P.S. SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 78810 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR, MR. S ROY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, M. HOSSAIN (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 11.03.2025 Heard Mr. N H Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the Page No.# 2/3 respondent no. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the FIR dated 12.07.2018 which was registered as Silchar P.S. Case No. 2314/2018. On 12.07.2018, an FIR was lodged before Police wherein it was alleged as under: The informant was staying in the State of Mizoram for earning his livelihood. His family including his minor sister lived in their native place under the jurisdiction of Silchar Police Station. On 05.04.2018, the minor sister of the informant was alone in the house. Taking that opportunity the present petitioner entered into the house at night and committed rape upon her. The minor girl did not tell anyone about the said incident because the petitioner allegedly threatened her with dire consequences. Ultimately, she disclosed before her parents about the said incident. A village meeting was called to solve the said matter. But nothing came out in the said meeting. Now, the petitioner has submitted that he has already married the said minor girl. They are also blessed with a child. The petitioner has submitted that both of them are now living happy. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 has also admitted that his sister is now married to the petitioner and they are now living a happy conjugal life with their child. Mr. Hussain submits that the respondent no. 2 has no objection if the FIR is quashed by this court. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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. Page No.# 3/3 (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.” Reverting to the case in hand, this court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction in future. Therefore, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of process of the court. This is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. For the aforesaid premised reasons, the FIR dated 12.07.2018 which was registered as Silchar P.S. Case No. 2314/2018 is quashed and set aside. The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant