Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010050252025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./316/2025 HUJUK CHANDRA DAS @ HIJIK CH DAS AND ANR. S/O LATE NATHURAM DAS R/O VILL-NIZ MONIRCHAR P.O. SARKERERGAON, P.S.SOUTH SALMARA DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783127 2: NRIPEN DAS @ NEPEN DAS S/O LATE MOHAN DAS R/OGAURIPUR KALIBARI MAJIPARA P.O.AND P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MOMINUR ISLAM S/O LATE ABU NASER R/OVILL-NIZ MONIRCHAR P.O.SARKERERGAON P.S. SOUTH SALMARA DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-783127 (INFORMANT) 3:BRISTI DAS Page No.# 2/5 W/O HUJUK CHANDRA DAS R/O VILL- NIZ MONIRCHAR P.O. SARKERERGAON P.S. SOUTH SALMARA DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-78312 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S RAHMAN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MRS S GOSWAMI (R-3) :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 05.04.2025 Heard Mr. S. Rahman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.H. Bora, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Ms. S. Goswami, the learned counsel representing the private respondent. 2. This an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of the Special (POCSO) Case No.213/2024 arising out of South Salmara P.S. Case No.47/2023 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar. 3. The Respondent No.2, Mominur Islam, being a stranger, lodged an FIR before police stating that the petitioner Hujuk Chandra Das @ Hijik Ch. Das, aged about 28 years had married a girl i.e. the Respondent No.3, who was below 18 years of age. 4. Police registered the case being South Salmara P.S. Case No.47/2023 under Sections 9, 10, 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 read with Section 6 Page No.# 3/5 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 5. Finally, police filed the charge sheet against Hujuk Chandra Das @ Hijik Ch. Das and his father Nathuram Das. Now, both of them have jointly filed this application stating that Hujuk Chandra Das @ Hijik Ch. Das has married the Respondent No.3. They are blessed with one child and they are living happily. They have prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings. 6. Ms. Goswami appearing for the Respondent No.3 has supported the plea taken by the petitioners. Ms. Goswami has submitted that the petitioner Hujuk Chandra Das @ Hijik Ch. Das and the Respondent No.3 are living a happy married life with their child. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 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 Page No.# 4/5 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. 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. There is no doubt that that an offence must be preceded by a criminal intention. If the criminal intention is proved, the offender can be punished under the law. Our legislature has created different acts for the benefit of the citizens. Nobody can be forced to give a minor girl in marriage. If anybody forces a minor girl to marry a person, then he will be punishable under the law. But if a minor girl below 18 years of age, on her own, marries a person, such as act may not be an offence under all the circumstances. At this stage, this Court will not go for any elaborate discussion on the subject. 10. Be that as it may, since the partiers do not want the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court, under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 because there is no possibility of conviction in this case. Allowing the criminal Page No.# 5/5 proceeding before the trial court to continue would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. 12. The criminal proceedings of the Special (POCSO) Case No.213/2024 arising out of South Salmara P.S. Case No.47/2023 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar, are quashed and set aside. With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant