Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010128622025 2025:GAU-AS:15363 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./689/2025 SAMRAT KR DAS S/O SRI SUSANTA KR. DAS VILL- DAKHIN BIDYA NAGAR, P.O. AND P.S. HOJAI DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782435 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI MONISHA DAS D/O SRI BIPUL DAS VILL- JAMUNAGURI P.O. AND P.S. JAMUNAMUKH DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782428 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR M Z RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. K I MAZUMDER(R-2),MR J ABEDIN (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 13.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Page No.# 2/6 Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the impugned criminal proceeding in PRC No. 256/2024, arising out of Jamunamukh P.S. Case No. 163/2019, dated 24.12.2019, pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 5, Sankardeva Nagar, Hojai. 3. One Smti. Monisha Das lodged an FIR dated 23.12.2024 before the Officer In-charge (O/C) of Hojai Police Station (P.S.) alleging inter-alia that the petitioner cheatingly took photos & videos from the informant's mobile in September, 2019 and then proposed for love affair with her but upon denial by the informant, the petitioner sent those photos & videos to the informant from different Facebook Accounts & Mobile Nos. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner demanded Rupees ten lakh from the informant with the threat to upload those photos in social media platforms. As the incident occurred within jurisdiction of Jamunamukh Police Station area, the O/C Hojai P.S. sent the said FIR on 23.12.2019 to the O/C Jamunamukh P.S. for taking necessary legal action as per procedure. Upon receipt of the said FIR, a case was registered vide Jamunamukh P.S. Case No. 163/2019 dated 23.12.2019 on 24.12.2019 under sections 294/385/509/354(D) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, R/W Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000. 4. Upon receipt of notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C from Jamunamukh police Page No.# 3/6 station the petitioner appeared before the I.O. and he was duly interrogated and was asked to appear on a subsequent date. It is stated that on the subsequent date the petitioner along with his uncle went to the police station again at 7 p.m. and after few minutes, the informant also came with her paternal uncle. After some discussion, it was found out that there was some misunderstanding between them and as such, the matter was amicably settled and both the sides requested the officer not to proceed further in connection with the said F.I.R. The Officer asked both not to keep contact with each other in future. The petitioner was allowed to go to his uncle’s house. 5. The matter was resolved between the parties at that time. Subsequently, however, the petitioner came to know that the present case in respect of which this revision petition has arisen is pending against the petitioner in the Court of the learned CJM, Hojai, wherein the charge-sheet has also been submitted. It is further submitted with reference to the charge-sheet that in respect of the allegation against the petitioner under Section 67 of the IT Act the I.O. has himself stated that since the earlier Investigating Officer did not call for any report from the authorities of facebook and there is no hope of getting the same as the case is an old one and thereby the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 294/509/354(D) I.P.C against the present petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that Section 294 I.P.C relating to obscene acts and songs and Section 509 IPC concerning words, gestures or acts intended to insult the prestige of a women, both of which are bailable are not attracted in the facts of the present case. Further, Section 354(D) I.P.C dealing with stalking is also not attracted in the case and that the gist such offence is also a baialble one. It is further pointed out that the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.10.2001, which is evident from the H.S.L.C admit card and therefore, at the Page No.# 4/6 time of offence the petitioner was a minor and the charge-sheet has been wrongly submitted by the I.O. 7. I have also heard the learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel Mr. J. Abedin, appearing for the informant/victim. It is submitted by Mr. Abedin, that the matter has been settled long ago and the alleged victim is engaged to another person and the pendency of the case is causing an impediment to her proposed marriage. It is further stated that the informant/victim has no grievance against the petitioner and submits that the impugned proceedings may be quashed. 8. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that “the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 9. Further, in the case of Narender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and when the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal cases would be futile, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the criminal proceeding in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court in non-compoundable cases, when the complainant does not want to continue with their own case after their Page No.# 5/6 settlement outside the Court. It is further held that “when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:- (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.” 10. In the instant case it is seen that the I.O Could not collect any material in respect of the alleged offence under Section 67 of the IT Act. The rest of the offences under Sections 294,385,509,354(D) are not heinous in nature and moreover, as conceded by the informant/victim, the matter has been settled long ago and the parties are leading their own separate lives peacefully. Under the circumstances, it can be presumed that the chance of conviction is very remote and if the trial is allowed to commence it is unlikely to result in connection the informant side cannot be reasonably expected to dispose against the present petitioner and for that reason allowing the proceeding to continue before learned Court below would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. In view of above, this Court is of the view that ends of justice, would be met if the petition is allowed. Therefore, I find that this is fit case where the extra-ordinary power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 can be invoked to quash the proceeding pending before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Hojai. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The F.I.R. of PRC No. 256/2024, arising out of Jamunamukh P.S. Case No. 163/2019, under Sections 294/385/509/354(D) of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 67 of the IT Act,2000, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class-5, Sankardeva Nagar, Hojai stand set aside and quashed. Page No.# 6/6 12. In terms of the above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant