Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010263762023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1236/2023 PALLAB DAS S/O PRANAB KUMAR DAS @ NANTU R/O VILL- KUDALI P.S. RATABARI DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR THROUGH LD. PP, ASSAM 2:RANJJIT CHOUDHURY S/O LATE RAKESH CHOUDHURY R/O VILL- KALYANPUR P.S. RAMKRISHNA NAGAR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-78816 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR, MR. S ROY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR M HUSSAIN (r-2),M. HOSSAIN (r-2) Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 27.02.2025 Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing Respondent No.1 as well as Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the CrPC with a prayer for quashing G.R. Case No.1167/2023 which has arisen out of Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No.81/2023 and is pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karimganj. 3. On 29.05.2023, Sri Ranjit Choudhury lodged an FIR before Kalibari Out Post under R.K. Nagar Police Station alleging that on 28.05.2023 at about 11 A.M., while he was absent in his house, his 16 year old daughter went missing after going to attend tuition classes. On 29.05.2023 at about 3 P.M., his daughter informed him over phone that one person had forcibly taken her to his house in an auto rickshaw. In the meantime, the missing daughter of the informant returned home and from her, he came to know that the present petitioner had kidnapped and raped her. 4. The present application has been filed by the petitioner Pallab Das stating that he has already married the girl. Some documents relating to the marriage are also filed in this application. 5. The learned counsel Mr. Hussain appearing for the girl has admitted that she has now married to the petitioner and both are having a peaceful married life. The Page No.# 3/4 learned counsel further submits that at the time of the incident, the girl was not 16 years old, rather she was above 17 years of age. 6. The learned counsel of both the sides have jointly submitted that the present petitioner has Masters Degree in English Language. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 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. BhajanLal, 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 Page No.# 4/4 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 circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction in this case. Therefore, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 10. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The criminal petition is allowed. 11. Accordingly, the G.R. Case No.1167/2023 which has arisen out of Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No.81/2023 and is pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karimganj, is quashed and set aside. The criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant