Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010006422011 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./220/2011 SAMAR CHIRING S/O SRI LANKESWAR CHIRING R/O DUPONI BORGAON, UNDER SADIA P.S. IN THE DIST. OF TINSUKIA, WITHIN THE STATE OF ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.K M SARMA, MR.K SARMA,MR.D DAS,MD.A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 21.02.2025 Heard Mr. K. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the said Code challenging the order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No.39/2010, Page No.# 2/5 corresponding to G.R. Case No.664/2009 arising out of Kokrajhar P.S. Case No.224/2009. 3. By the impugned order, the trial court framed the charges under Section 342, 376 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 (1-A) of Cinematograph Act, against the present petitioner. In the same case, the trial court framed the charges under Sections 366 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code against another person named Jitul Ahmed. 4. On 21.06.2009, Lalbahadur Ray had lodged an Ejaher before police stating that his daughter was a student of B.A. Part-I in Kokrajhar College. She had developed friendship with Jitul Ahmed after he introduced himself as a Hindu boy. The friendship blossomed into love. 5. At that time, the present petitioner was staying at Kokrajhar in a rented house. He was a friend of Jitul Ahmed. 6. On 30.03.2009, Jitul Ahmed took the daughter of the informant to the rented house of the petitioner and there, they had physical relationship. It is alleged that the entire incident of physical relationship between Jitul Ahmed and the daughter of the informant was video recorded in the mobile phone of Jitul Ahmed. The said video clip was saved in the personal computer of Jitul Ahmed. 7. Thereafter, Jitul Ahmed used to blackmail the girl by showing the video clip to her and procured the consent for physical relationship with her. 8. On 30.05.2009, Jitul Ahmed took away the daughter of the informant to Goalpara. On getting that information, the informant father went to the house of Jitul Ahmed and the father of Jitul Ahmed was informed about the said offence. The father of Jitul Ahmed expressed his ignorance about the said incident. 9. On 09.06.2009, the informant father was informed by the father of Jitul Ahmed that Jitul Ahmed had married the girl. On 10.06.2009, the father of Jitul Ahmed asked Page No.# 3/5 the informant to come to the court at Bongaigaon in order to prove a signature in an affidavit whereby he would agree to the marriage of Jitul Ahmed and his daughter. 10. According to the informant, he went to Bongaigaon and for the sake of the future of his daughter and had put his signature in the said affidavit. 11. After that day, the informant never received any informant about his daughter. Therefore, on 13.06.2009, the informant contacted the officials of the Local Students Organization. On 16.06.2009, the boys of the students’ organization, rescued the girl from the house of Jitul Ahmed. The boys organized a social meeting to solve the dispute. It may be stated that the boys of the said organization even seized the computer of Jitul Ahmed. The said computer was full of obscene videos. Ultimately, the girl was given in custody of the informant father. It is alleged in the FIR that the father of Jitul Ahmed had helped him in the entire incident. 12. Police registered the case as Kokrajhar P.S. Case No.224/2009 under Sections 342/376/366/423/109 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, nothing was found against the father of Jitul Ahmed. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against Jitul Ahmed and the present petitioner. 13. The learned counsel Mr. Sarma has pointed out that in the aforesaid incident, the rented house of the petitioner was used by Jitul Ahmed. Mr. Sarma submitted that there is no allegation against the present petitioner. According to Mr. Sarma, the act of using the rented house of the present petitioner by Jitul Ahmed, does not itself constitute an offence against the present petitioner. 14. After hearing the learned counsel of both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court did not exercise judicial mind while framing the charges against the present petitioner. It is clear on the face of the record that the charges against the present petitioner were framed mechanically without perusal of the materials available in the record. 15. This Court is of the opinion that in this case, there are no materials for a prima Page No.# 4/5 facie case under Section 342, 376 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 (1-A) of Cinematograph Act, against the present petitioner. 16. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 )has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 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 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 Page No.# 5/5 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.” 17. Reverting the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that this case is a classic example of non-application of judicial mind by a judge. Therefore, this is a fit case for exercising a power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 18. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Kokrajhar framing the charges against the present petitioner Samar Chiring in Sessions Case No.39/2010 is set aside. 19. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and disposed of in respect of Samar Chiring. 20. The trial court is directed to expeditiously dispose of the trial of this case. This is an old pending case. Therefore, the trial court would make efforts to dispose of this case within next 6(six) months of receiving the LCR. Send back the LCR. JUDGE Comparing Assistant