Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010010152023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./89/2023 AHIA AHMED AND 4 ORS. S/O ABDUL KASEM R/O VILL- HATIJUJUA P.S. JAJORI DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM 2: HAZRAT ALI S/O RAHAM ALI R/O VILL- HATIJUJUA P.S. JAJORI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 3: RAKIBUL HUSSAIN S/O TAFAZZUL ISLAM R/O VILL- HATIJUJUA P.S. JAJORI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 4: ABDUL MATIN S/O LATE JANGSER ALI R/O VILL- HATIJUJUA P.S. JAJORI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 5: BABUL HOQUE S/O RAHAM ALI R/O VILL- HATIJUJUA P.S. JAJORI DIST. NAGAON ASSA Page No.# 2/4 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MD. HAZARAT ALI S/O LATE ABDUL RAHIM R/O VILL- HATIJUJUA P.S. JAJORI DIST. NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A DEKA (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 11.03.2025 Heard Mr. B K Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the proceedings of Special (POCSO) Case No. 172/2022 pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaon. On 29.01.2022, Hazarat Ali lodged an FIR before police alleging that on 28.01.2022, at about 5 PM, his daughter had gone to the house of a relative, which was situated in the neighborhood. But the girl did not return home for a long time. Therefore, the informant started searching the girl. He came to know that the present petitioners along with another person had kidnapped the girl. According to the informant, his daughter was 16 (sixteen) years old at that time. The petitioners have submitted that the kidnapped girl was actually in love with the petitioner Ahia Ahmed. Both of them ran away from their houses. The petitioners have submitted that they have settled the dispute with the informant and the informant has agreed to give his daughter in marriage to Ahia Ahmed. Page No.# 3/4 Mr. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the informant has submitted that both sides have settled the dispute and the informant has no longer interest in prosecuting the case before the trial court. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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 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.” Reverting to the case in hand, this court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction in future. Therefore, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of process of the court. This is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Page No.# 4/4 For the aforesaid premised reasons, the Special (POCSO) Case No. 172/2022 pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaon is quashed and set aside. The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant