Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010234222025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1312/2025 SRI ABHISHEK SAHA SON OF SRI ARUP CHANDRA SAHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAMUNGAON PART I UNDER ABHAYAPURI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI MANDIRA DAS DAUGHTER OF LATE LALTU DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BORGAON UNDER BILASIPARA POLICE STATION IN THE DISTRICT OF DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B M CHOUDHURY, MR. J P BARUAH,MR. U CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S SUTRADHAR (R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 14.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. B. Suthradhar, the learned counsel for the Page No.# 2/5 respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, Abhishek Saha, praying for quashing of the proceedings of the PRC Case No. 674/2025 under Sections 417/376/506/427 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The aforesaid PRC Case No. 674/2025 was registered on receipt of the charge-sheet filed against the present petitioner in connection with Fatasil Ambari P. S. Case No. 190/2023, which was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2 (victim girl), on 26.08.2023. It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioner and the victim girl got acquainted to each other in the year 2020 and the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the respondent No.2 on the pretext of marrying her. It was alleged that they had such intimate relationship in different hotels. It was further alleged that when the respondent No.2 asked the petitioner to marry her, he assaulted her and broke her mobile phone and demanded a government job along with a cash amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 got acquainted to each other through social media (facebook) and developed a romantic relationship. The petitioner was posted at Mahur and the respondent No. 2 was posted at Bilasipara and therefore, they had long distance relationship. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to misunderstanding and personal differences, their relationship broke up, as a result of Page No.# 3/5 which the respondent No. 2 lodged false FIR against the petitioner purely out of personal grudge to wreck vengeance. 5. He further submits that the respondent No.2 who is now aged about 30 years as in the meanwhile, she has settled the matter outside the court and has submitted an affidavit to the effect that she had lodged the FIR against the present petitioner out of misunderstanding. 6. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the victim woman has herself submitted an affidavit categorically stating therein that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding, it may be futile to pursue the criminal proceeding in PRC Case No. 674/2025 as it would be a clear wastage of judicial time. 7. He further submits that when the victim girl herself is not supporting the prosecution case, the chances of conviction would be very week and continuance of wrong proceeding against the petitioner would be a futile exercise. 8. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Kapil Gupta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.”, reported in 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1108. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed for bail of the petitioner on the ground of the offence involved in this case is heinous in nature and therefore, the same cannot be allowed to invoke merely on the ground of compromise between the parties. Page No.# 4/5 10. Mr. B. Suthradhar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand has submitted that the victim girl has filed an affidavit in this case inter-alia stating that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties as it was filed due to misunderstanding. 11. He further submits that the victim girl has also admitted the fact that there was a romantic relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl, however, now there is a breakup between them and the victim girl is getting marriage proposal and the intends to settle in life, however, due to the pendency of the criminal case involving with the victim girl there may be difficulty in getting positive result of the said marriage proposal. She, therefore, does not intend to pursue the matter. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the material available on record. 13. I have also gone through the affidavit filed by the victim girl in this case. In her affidavit filed by the victim girl, she has categorically stated that there was a romantic relationship between the victim girl and the petitioner and the FIR was lodged by the victim girl due to misunderstanding when the relationship broke apart. 14. However, she has realised her mistake and has admitted that the FIR was filed due to misunderstanding and does not want to pursue the matter. Page No.# 5/5 15. Though, the charge-sheet has been laid in PRC Case No. 674/2025 amongst other provisions under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a heinous offence. 16. However, when the victim girl is herself not supporting prosecution case, even if the trial is permitted to go ahead there is unlikelihood of resulting it in the conviction of the petitioner. 17. Under such circumstances, the proceeding further of the aforesaid criminal trial would be a futile exercise and a clear wastage of judicial time and further unnecessary harassment to the parties. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case wherein exercise of the inheritance jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the proceeding of PRC Case No. 674/2025 may be quashed. 19. For the reasons stated herein above, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceeding of PRC Case No. 674/2025 arising out of the Fatasil Ambari P. S. Case No. 190/2023 is hereby quashed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant