Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020001362025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./10/2025 SHRI ILIUS AHMED CHOUDHURY S/O SOFIQUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY,PRESENTLY RESIDING IN UPPER CHANDMARI, KOHIMA, NAGALAND, PHONE NO. 9862127480 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY P P 2:SHRI NAZIM UDDIN (COMPLAINANT) V/O MAIZGRAM KARIMGANJ ASSAM P.A JAIL COLONY KOHIMA NAGALAND. MOBILE NO. 9436088635 8787817595 3:MISS XYZ (VICTIM) D/O NAZIM UDDIN V/O MAIZGRAM KARIMGANJ ASSAM P/A - JAIL COLONY. KOHIMA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : ALEMWAPANG AO, ,PAKINRICHAPBO,M ANYEI Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 25.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pakinrichapbo, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Mere, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland. 2. This application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, for quashing the FIR dated 29.07.2023 against the petitioner in connection with G. R. Case No. 115/2023 (corresponding to Kohima Women P. S. Case No. 0006/2023) under Section 376(3)/354D of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Criminal Petition, in brief, are that on 27.07.2023, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of the Women Police Station, Kohima, inter-alia, alleging that his minor daughter was subjected to sexual abuse by the present petitioner and on 27.07.2023, he was caught red-handed, while subjecting the daughter of the informant to sexual abuse. 4. On receipt of the said FIR, Kohima Women P. S. Case No. 0006/2023 under Section 376(3)/354D of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and the investigation was initiated. 5. Ultimately, after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid against the present petitioner, Kohima Women P. S. Case No. 0006/2023 under Section 376(3)/354D of the Indian Page No.# 3/5 Penal Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. In the charge-sheet, eight (08) numbers of prosecution witnesses were listed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars since the date of arrest, i.e., on 27.07.2023 and he has been facing his trial while remaining in custody. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses, 6 (six) prosecution witnesses have already been examined and in her deposition before the Trial Court, the victim has not implicated him for the offences alleged against him. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the informant, i.e., the father of the victim girl has also been examined in this case and he has also deposed that he had lodged the FIR basing on the statement of his daughter. 9. It has also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant, while deposing, as PW-1 before the Trial Court, has also not implicated the present petitioner in this case. He, therefore, submits that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of law and therefore, prays for quashing the FIR. 10. On the other hand, Ms. S. Mere, the learned Public Prosecutor has objected to the prayer of quashing of the FIR at this stage. She submits that on the basis of the FIR, which is sought to be quashed, an investigation was carried out and after investigation, the charge-sheet was laid and the trial is going on. She submits that the question of quashing of the said FIR does not arise at this stage. Page No.# 4/5 She also submits that the trial has fairly progressed and only two of the remaining witnesses are to be examined, it would not be proper for this Court to thwart the trial at this stage, by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on record. 12. It appears that the petitioner has sought for the relief of quashing the FIR dated 29.07.2023, which gave rise to G. R. Case No. 115/2023. The petitioner has not prayed for any other relief. Neither he has prayed for relief of quashing of the charge-sheet, nor for the quashing of the criminal proceeding, pending against him. 13. It appears from the record that after filing of the FIR, an investigation was ensued, which led to filing of the charge-sheet against the present petitioner under Section 376(3)/354D of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and thereafter, the charges were framed against the present petitioner and the trial is going on. 14. It also appears that the trial has fairly progressed and out of 8(eight) listed prosecution witnesses, 6(six) have already been examined and only 2(two) prosecution witnesses are to be examined. At this stage, the question of quashing of the FIR does not arise, when there is no prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings of G. R. Case No. 115/2023. 15. Moreover, merely because the victim girl and the informant have not implicated the petitioner, in their testimony. While deposing as prosecution witnesses, it would not be proper for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, at this belated stage, to interfered Page No.# 5/5 in the trial. The trial has to reach its logical conclusion. 16. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case, where inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 may be exercised. 17. This Criminal Petition is, therefore, dismissed without issuing notice to the private respondents. 18. As regards the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still languishing behind the bar, is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Trial Court by filing an appropriate application, seeking appropriate relief including grant of bail to him before the said Court, if so advised. 19. With this observation, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant