Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010043762025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./238/2025 SMT RUNUMONI BORAH AND ANR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI SANKARJYOTI HAZARIKA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BHEKULIMARI, P.O. KAMALABARI, P.S. MAJULI, DISTRICT - MAJULI, ASSAM, PIN -785106. 2: JAMMAN HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS SON OF LATE POZINUL HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DAHIKHUR MUSLIM GAON P.O. BAGHMORA P.S. JORHAT DISTRICT - JORHAT ASSAM PIN -785101 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM, GAUHATI HIGH COURT. 2:xxx Dibrugar Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GOGOI, MR. R K D CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 04.04.2025 Heard Mr. RKD Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 442 and 438 of the said Code in respect of Charge Sheet No.58 dated 31.12.2024 arising out of Garamur P.S. Case No.63/2024 under Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the PRC Case No.8/2025. 3. The gist of the story is that a minor girl gave birth to a baby. She handed over the said baby to the local CWC. After some time, she came to CWC asking for return of the baby to her. At that time, the Chairperson of CWC, Majuli constituted a committed comprising of the present petitioners to make an Inquiry and to file a Report. The petitioners being the members of the said committee went to the house of the minor victim and explained to her the relevant circumstances regarding the return of the baby to her. 4. Thereafter, the father of the victim girl had complained before the Presiding Officer, Children’s Court at Majuli alleging that these petitioners had demanded monetary gratification to dissuade the victim girl from taking custody of the baby back. Therefore, the Presiding Officer, Children’s Court at Majuli lodged the FIR before police. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. Page No.# 3/4 6. The petitioners being the employees of the CWC had gone to the house of the victim girl on the basis of an order of the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, Majuli. They simply explained the victim to the circumstances which might happen if she takes back the child or she gives the baby to somebody else on adoption. 7. The petitioners though employees of the Child Welfare Committee, are not experts in law. Therefore, they might have committed some mistakes while explaining the legal provisions to the victim girl. But these acts do not constitute a prima facie case against the present petitioners under Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 8. 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. Paragraphs 102 and 103 of the judgment read 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 Page No.# 4/4 155(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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 9. Coming back the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the allegation as well as the materials available with the record clearly shows that no prima facie case is available against the present petitioners for going to trial. Allowing such a criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 10. Therefore, the Charge Sheet No.58 dated 31.12.2024 arising out of Garamur P.S. Case No.63/2024 under Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as well as the PRC Case No.8/2025, are quashed and set aside. With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant