Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010101272026 2026:GAU-AS:10520 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./738/2026 UTKARSH GUPTA SON OF RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, CURRENT RESIDENT OF HOSTEL MANAS, IIT GUWAHATI, DISTRICT - KAMRUP METROPOLITAN, ASSAM, AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF- 36 KUNDAN NAGAR, BEHIND A.G. OFFICE, CITY CENTRE, GWALIOR, M.P.- 474220 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, I BLOCK JANTA BHAWAN THE ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT - KAMRUP METROPOLITAN, ASSAM. 2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GUWAHATI ASSAM. 3:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GUWAHATI DISTRICT - KAMRUP METROPOLITAN ASSAM 4:STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION - NORTH GUWAHATI DISTRICT - KAMRUP METROPOLITAN ASSAM. 5:PROFESSOR PERUMAL ALAGARSAMY DEAN OF STUDENT AFFAIRS CHAIRPERSON OF ANTI-RAGGING COMMITTEE Page No.# 2/7 IIT GUWAHATI DISTRICT KAMRUP METROPOLITAN ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : BOKALI KASHO, MS. KEKHRIENGUNUO CATHERINE,DR. A LALL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S SUTRADHAR(R-5),MR. R P KAKOTI SR. ADV.(R-5) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 29.07.2026 Heard Dr A Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. Also heard Mr A B Dey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the First Information Report lodged on 19.04.2026, registered under Sections 127(2)/296/3(5)/351(2) of the BNSS, 2023, as well as under Section 4 of the Assam Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998. 3. The First Information Report, which is prayed for quashing was lodged on 19.04.2026, wherein it was stated by the informant, i.e., the Professor of Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, that the petitioner and others had called one junior student, who was studying in the First Year to a Room No. D-310, at around 02:00 am, on 26.03.2026, and when the said Junior Student reached the said room, the petitioner began shouting loudly to the said victim for 2/3 minutes using abusive language. It was also alleged that the victim was made to stand with his head down throughout the entire period and that the Page No.# 3/7 companion of the petitioner had harassed the victim in various ways. The informant had given this information to the Officer-In-Charge of the North Guwahati Police Station on the basis of the complaint received from the said victim. The informant further stated that the incident was referred to the Anti- Ragging Committee for examination and that the Committee had done a detailed enquiry on 13.04.2026 and upon conclusion of the said enquiry, it was reported that the ragging had taken place in violation of the UGC guidelines. It is this FIR, which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients of the charged offences are not available in the instant case. He submits that the victim was not restrained by the petitioner and others and that the room was not locked after he came inside and he also submits that the ingredients of other offences, i.e., Section 296/Section 3(5) as well as Section 351(2) are not attracted in the case. He also submits that Section 4 of the Assam Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, also is not attracted. He further submits that the petitioner is of 21 years of age and he is studying in the 3rd year in the IIT and that a parallel proceeding was also initiated against him by the Indian Institute of Technology. He also submits that punishment has been imposed by the competent authority in the IIT upon the petitioner. He, as such submits that the present FIR be quashed qua the petitioner on the ground of equity. 3. On the other hand, Ms S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the offences registered by the Police are well attracted in the instant case, inasmuch, as the victim was called to a particular room and he was abused therein and was also made to face trauma by the petitioner concerned. As such, she submits that the instant FIR is not amenable to quashing. Page No.# 4/7 4. Mr A B Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has also submitted that based on the complaint of the victim, the FIR was instituted by the said respondent No. 5 and the enquiry was conducted and in the said enquiry it was found that ragging, in fact, had taken place on the said date upon the victim by the petitioner and others. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have gone through the records. 6. It is no res integra that for quashing of an FIR the main ground that has to be seen is as to whether a cognizable offence is made out in the said FIR and the connected documents. It is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if a cognizable offence is made out, no quashing can be ordered by the High Court under its inherent power. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana -vs-Bhajan Lal; reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335, has held as under:- “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 F. I. R. 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. Page No.# 5/7 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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.” 7. As such, it is seen that the Apex Court has held that when the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint are taken at their face value and are accepted in their entirety, makes out a prima facie case constituting any offence, the said FIR cannot be quashed. In the instant case, it is stated in clear terms in the said FIR that the petitioner and others had called the victim to the room being Room No. D-310, at around 02:00 am, on 26.03.2026. It is further stated that as per the evidence given by the victim, it was the petitioner who had shouted loudly at the victim for 2/3 minutes using abusive language. The term ‘ragging’ has been defined under the Assam Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, as follows:- Page No.# 6/7 (c) “ragging” means either display of noisy or disorderly conduct of doing of any act which causes or likely to cause social, physical or psychological harm or raise apprehension or fear or shame or embarrassment to any student in any educational institutions and includes- (i) teasing, abusing of, playing practical jokes on or causing hurt to such student, or (ii) asking the student to do any act or perform something which such student will not, in the ordinary course, willingly do.” 8. By a bare perusal of the said definition, it is seen that shouting at a student by using abusive language too comes within the definition thereof. In the instant case, it is stated that the petitioner had shouted loudly on the victim by using abusive language. As such, Section 4 of the Assam Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, is well attracted in the said case. It is also seen that the ingredients of Section 127(2) of the BNS, 2023, are also attracted in the instant case, inasmuch, as the victim was called to the particular room and he was confined inside the same by the petitioner and others, who are much senior to the victim. Further, the ingredients of Section 296 of the BNS, 2023, which provides that using obscene acts and songs including uttering obscene words will amount to offence are also attracted in the instant case, in view of the fact that the petitioner shouted loudly by using obscene words. Similar is the case of offence under Section 351(2) of the BNSS, 2023, which provides that whoever Page No.# 7/7 threatens another by any means will be charged with criminal intimidation, is also well attracted in the instant case, so as the provision under Section 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023. Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, provides for common intention and the said common intention has to be gathered from the conduct of the parties. In the instant case, calling the victim to a particular room by the petitioner and others, at 02:00 am, shows the common intention, shared by the petitioner and others. 9. In view of the said findings, this Court does not deem it fit to quash the instant FIR under its inherent power, and as such, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant