Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010245872025 2025:GAU-AS:15330 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1375/2025 LALIT KUMAR SON OF LATE RAKESH KUMAR PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MILITARY HOSPITAL AGRA, CAMPUS, PIN- 900322, C/O 56APO PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- NAGLARAMBAL, P.O. LUTSAN, P.S. SARNI, DIST. HATHRA, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN- 202139. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR TO BE REP.BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:PUSPALATA CHOUDHURY JAT WIFE OF VIJOY CHOUDHURY JAT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 33 ARMED DIVISION HISAR HARYANA UNIT-633EME BATTALION PIN CODE- 905433 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- BARUKHEDI P.O. DELCHI BUJURG TEH. MAHIDPUR DIST.UJJAIN STATE- MADHYA PRADESH PIN-45644 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR, MS S AHMED,MR. A K HANNAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 12.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Lalit Kumar, impugning the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate(S), Jorhat, in P.R.C. Case No. 725/2023 by which the cognizance Section 376 on against the petitioner the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the proceeding of the PRC Case No. 725/2023. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition in brief, are that on 12.06.2022, the victim woman had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Jorhat Police Station, Jorhat, inter-alia alleging that the husband of the victim woman was posted at 21 Para Special Force, Rowriah and they were residing at Quarter No. 6/5, New Building within Battalion Gate, Rowriah, Jorhat. 4. It is further stated in the FIR that the present petitioner also resided near the quarter of the victim woman and during visit of the victim to the hospital where the present petitioner was posted, they got acquainted. Page No.# 3/6 5. It has been alleged in the FIR that on 08.09.2021, at about 11.30 pm, the petitioner entered into the quarter of the victim woman in a drunken condition and forcefully committed physical relationship with the victim woman. It is further stated in the FIR that the victim woman disclosed the incident to her husband and on very next day lodged a written complaint to the police as well as to the authorities of Battalion, however, no action was taken on the said complaint. 6. On receipt of the said FIR, Jorhat P. S. Case No. 569/2022 was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was initiated, ultimately, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet No. 347 dated 20.08.2023 was laid against the present petitioner under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of the charge-sheet after perusal of the record, the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate(S), Jorhat, by the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 took cognizance under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the present petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accusation made against the present petitioner in the aforementioned FIR are total false and concocted. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the FIR has been lodged by the victim woman on the instigation of her husband, who had previous grudge and enmity against him. He further submits that at the time of alleged incident the petitioner was not in Jorhat, rather he was in Numaligarh and returned back Page No.# 4/6 only on 11.09.2021. He further submits that the petitioner had left Jorhat on 08.09.2021 at about 7.30 am and to that effect he had reported to his senior authority, namely, Major Sarth through WhatApp message. 9. In support of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has annexed the screenshot of WhatApp chat between the petitioner and his senior Officer, Major Sarath. He has also annexed a copy of daily Parade State of HQT on 08.09.2021, which shows that the petitioner was deputed to Numaligarh on the said date and he was released from Numaligarh only on 11.09.2021. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner was not present at the place of the alleged incident i.e., on 08.09.2021, it is apparent that the accusation made against him is false and concocted, and therefore, compelling him to face a criminal trial would be abuse of process of law. 11. He submits that the FIR has been lodged against the present petitioner only with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on him and, therefore, the proceedings of the PRC Case No. 725/2023 are liable to be quashed. 12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the grounds that the accusation made by the victim woman in the FIR has been investigated by the Investigating Officer and only after thorough investigation and finding sufficient evidence against the present petitioner, the charge sheet has been laid against him under Section Page No.# 5/6 376 of Indian Penal Code. 13. He further submits that a plea of alibi raised by the present petitioner to this criminal petition may be taken by him during the trial. However, it may not be proper to scuttle a criminal proceeding at this stage. He, therefore, pleads for dismissal of the instant criminal petition. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides have gone through the materials available on record. 15. In the instant case, the charge sheet under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code has been laid by the Investigating Officer. After considering the incriminating evidence collected during investigation, including the statement of the victim who was recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it also appears that during the course of the investigation, the petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation, and accordingly, he was shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet. 16. The documents submitted by the petitioner in support of his plea of alibi can very well be produced before the trial court during the trial, however, while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, this court cannot conduct a mini-trial to test the veracity of the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner. 17. It is no longer res-integra that the power of quashing of a criminal proceeding after laying of charge sheet should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection. The accusation made against the Page No.# 6/6 petitioner by the respondent No. 2 in the FIR are grave in nature, and sufficient supporting materials were found during the course of the investigation. 18. The veracity of documents of which the petitioner is relying on in support of his plea of alibi are not tested, and same has to be done only during the trial and this Court, cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, assume the role of the trial court. It would be premature to accept the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner without testing its veracity, which can only be done in the trial. 19. In the aforesaid reasons this court is of the considered opinion that the facts of this case does not constitute an exceptional case where non-interference of this court in the judicial process after laying of charge sheet against the present petitioner would result in miscarriage of justice. Hence, this criminal petition is dismissed without issuing notice to the respondent No.2. JUDGE Comparing Assistant