Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040002392023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./25/2023 Dr. Hano Romesh S/o Shri Hano Talang, R/o Village Bamin, PO and PS Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, (AP) VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and Anr. Represented through Public Prosecutor. 2:Langpu Sonia Age: 0 Occupation : D/o Shri Langpu Tatung Village Pillua PO/PS Tali Kra Dadi District Present Address Quary Line PO/PS Ziro Lower Subansiri DIstric Advocate for the Petitioner : Muk Pertin, Senior Advocate, Mukbom Pertin,Dusu Rillung,Karyom Dabi,D Tatak,R. Riba,Tallo Talang,Tshering Yangzom Bhutia,D Riba,Dakme Yali,Rajesh Sonar,R Taku,Binny Nyaruce,Michi Khambo,Khyoda Yayo Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, L Apon,Larje Soki,Himat Richo,Gotu Riba,T Don,Byabang Mema Page No.# 2/4 ::BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 18.12.2025 Heard the learned counsel Mr. R. Sonar appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh as well as Ms. Meyma Bagang, the learned counsel appearing for the victim. 2. This is a joint application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing and setting aside the FIR dated 01.09.2022 in Ziro Women P.S. Case No.06/2022 and the charge sheet being C.S. No.05/2022 dated 22.09.2022. 3. The Respondent No.2 is the informant. She had lodged the complaint against the petitioner Dr. Hano Romesh. She has alleged that on 30.08.2022, she had visited the Gyati Taka General Hospital at Ziro to show some medical test reports to Dr. Hano Romesh, an ENT specialist. The petitioner doctor reportedly asked her some general questions and had gone through the medical reports of the respondent/victim. After that, in order to examine her body, he asked the respondent to lie on the bed in the chamber. He allegedly insisted on removing her bra. She reportedly told doctor that she was having irregular monthly periods. Then, the doctor insisted on removing her trousers also. Ultimately, she gave in and the doctor examined her private parts also. 4. In fact, the Respondent No.2 was suffering from ear problem and that is why she had gone to meet the petitioner who is an ENT specialist. 5. While examining the Respondent No.2/victim, the petitioner applied clotrimazole cream. The petitioner doctor reportedly started to talk to the Respondent No.2 in an Page No.# 3/4 uncivilized manner. 6. Today, Ms. Bagang, the learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2/ victim has submitted that the victim has already compromised the matter and she is no longer interested in prosecuting the case against the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 8. The guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. -versus- Bhajanlal and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: “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 channelized 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 Page No.# 4/4 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 the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable in the present case. I find that under the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. Thus, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court, would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. It is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 10. In view of the above, the FIR dated 01.09.2022 in Ziro Women P.S. Case No.06/2022 and the charge sheet being C.S. No.05/2022 dated 22.09.2022, is set quashed and aside. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant