Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010257852025 2025:GAU-AS:17803 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1488/2025 NAZMUL SARKAR S/O MOKSEDUL MOMIN @ MOKSED ALI, R/O NEWAJESPUR , POFULERCHAR, PS SUKCHAR , DIST SOUTH SALMARA ,ASSAM, PIN- 783135 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:MRS ARMINA BEGUM W/O NAZMUL SARKAR R/O NEWAJESPUR PO FULERCHAR PS SUKCHAR DIST SOUT SALMARA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM, MS A KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A.K. HAJONG,MR I CHAKMA,MS. D GHOSH BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 18.12.2025 Heard Mr M Islam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard K K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam; and Mr A K Page No.# 2/4 Hajong, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2. 2. The instant criminal petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, with the prayer for setting aside and quashing of the proceedings of Special (P) Case No. 240/2024, under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (PCM) Act, 2006, read with Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the petitioner and the said case is pending before the learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar. The said special case has been registered pursuant to the charge sheet No. 182/2023, dated 30.11.2023, arising out of Sukchar PS Case No. 230/2023. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 02.02.2023, the complainant, i.e., the Gaon Panchayat Secretary of Newajespur had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Sukchar Police Station (in short, P.S.), stating that the accused/petitioner No. 1, Nazmul Sarkar had married a young girl, who is below the permissible age of marriage. The said FIR was received and registered on 02.10.2023 as Sukchar PS Case No. 230/2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of marriage, the alleged victim was a minor, and now, the alleged victim is major. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner and his wife, i.e., the alleged victim are enjoying happy married lives since the day of their marriage. In the meantime, the petitioner and his wife have been blessed with children. 5. The victim (respondent No. 2) minor girl is now more than 18 years of age and she has submitted that since they are living happily together, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be detrimental to their future life. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. 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. Bhajan Lal, reported in 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 Page No.# 3/4 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 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.” Page No.# 4/4 8. This Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), is applicable in the present case. Since the so-called victim girl has come forward to state that she has been living happily with her husband and she is now a major, in such a circumstance, there is no possibility of conviction of anybody in future. Thus, allowing such a criminal proceeding to continue before a trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 9. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings of Special (P) Case No.240/2024, arising out of Sukchar PS Case No. 27/2023, against the present petitioner is quashed. 10. The Criminal Petition accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant