Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010032992025 2026:GAU-AS:4157 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./190/2025 BIDHU SAKAR S/O SRI NIKHIL SARKAR R/O VILL-NK ANGARKATA PALASHBARI P.S. TAMULPUR (KUMARIKATA OP), DIST. TAMULPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SRI BISHAKA SARKAR W/O MADHUSUDHAN SARKAR R/O VILL.-NK ANGARKATA PALASHBARI P.S.-TAMULPUR (KUMARIKATA OP) DIST.- TAMULPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, MR. A C AZAD Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 23-03-2026 Page No.# 2/5 Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.PC for setting aside and quashing of the impugned charges framed u/s 448/376(1)/294/506 IPC on 17.12.2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa in Sessions Case no. 142/2024 and also prayed for quashing the impugned Order dated 26.09.2024 passed in PRC Case No 58/2024 by learned JMFC, Baksa, Mushalpur in connection with Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 13/2024. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Chowdhury that an FIR was lodged against the present accused/petitioner with an allegation that on the night of incident i.e. on 14.01.2024 at about 8 PM the present petitioner entered into the house of the informant in a drunken condition and assaulted the victim and also abused her with filthy languages. Hearing her hue and cry, her brother-in-law Ramcharan Sarkar came to resist him, when the accused/petitioner also assaulted her brother-in-law and caused grievous injury on his person. He submitted that there is no mention at all about committing rape by the accused/petitioner on the night of incident on which the FIR was lodged by the informant. The learned the JMFC, Baksa also framed charges against the present accused/petitioner u/s 448/323/294 IPC, considering the materials on record and the statement of the witnesses. The case accordingly proceeded and 7 nos. of witnesses have already been examined by the learned JMFC including the informant/victim, Medical Officer, I/O and the other independent witnesses. He further submitted that those witnesses never uttered anything about rape Page No.# 3/5 committed on the victim and the only allegation against him is that he entered into the house of the informant in the night of occurrence, assaulted her and also assaulted her brother-in-law. The Medical Report of both the victims also speaks in regards to some bodily injury on the victim/informant as well as her brother-in-law. That apart, nothing has been mentioned in the statement made by the witnesses as well as the I/O and the Medical Officer regarding commission of rape by the accused/petitioner. Further, the victim also did not bring any allegation of rape while her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC and she simply brought the allegation of abusing her and assaulting her along with her brother-in-law. But surprisingly for the first time, the informant /victim as PW-1 brought the allegation of rape against the present petitioner and to that extent she was also cross-examined by the defence. Except her simple verbal statement on the FIR, there is no material at all to frame charge against the present petitioner u/s 376(1) IPC and in the same time from the medical evidence as well as from the evidence of the I/O also it is seen that she never uttered anything about the commission of rape on her by the accused/petitioner. Accordingly, Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel further submitted that the learned Trial Court below without applying its judicial mind had passed the order dated 26.09.2024 committing the case before the learned Sessions Judge with an observation that offence u/s 376 IPC has been made out in the present case. Further, he submitted that considering only the order passed by the learned Trial Court below, the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa had passed the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 whereby without perusing any materials on record and without even applying its judicial mind had framed the charges u/s 448/376(1)/294/506 IPC and hence the said impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed. Page No.# 4/5 4. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that it is a fact that the FIR is lodged against the present petitioner only with the allegation of criminal intimidation and assault on the victim as well as her brother-in-law and it is also a fact that there is no material to support the case of the prosecution to establish a case against the petitioner u/s 376 IPC. The Medical Report, the evidence of the I/O as well as other independent witnesses also do not support the case of the prosecution u/s 376(1) IPC. He further submitted that as per the medical evidence also the victim was not examined as a rape victim. But only as per the allegation of assault, she and her brother-in-law are being examined accordingly, wherein some minor injuries were found on their person. Mr. Borthakur accordingly fairly submitted that there is no material to support the case u/s 376 IPC against the present petitioner. 5. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and also the evidences of the PWs recorded by the learned Trial Court below before committing the case to the Court of learned Sessions Sessions Judge vide its Order dated 26.09.2024. It is the admitted position that in the FIR there is no ingredient of rape or there is no allegation brought against the accused/petitioner. Further, it is also seen that in her statement made u/s 161 Cr.PC also the victim never raised any allegation of rape on her. Further, the statement of other witnesses also did not bring any allegation of rape against him. As pointed out by Mr. Choudhury, it is seen that the medical evidence is also silent in regards to any sign of rape and the victim as well as her brother-in-law were only examined for the injury they had sustained on their person. From the evidence of the I/O also it is very evident that the victim never brought any allegation of rape against her and it is for the Page No.# 5/5 first time in her evidence as PW-1 she made a statement that the accused also committed rape on her. Thus, it is the admitted position there is no material or evidence against the present petitioner to frame charge against him u/s 376(1) IPC nor there is any material to commit the case record before the learned Sessions Judge by the Trial Court with an observation that there is ingredient of 376 IPC in the present case. 6. Thus, it is seen that the order dated 26.09.2024 by which the case was committed before the learned Sessions Judge as well as the order of framing charge by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa dated 17.12.2024 needs interference of this Court and accordingly both the orders of 26.09.2024 and 17.12.2024 are hereby set aside and quashed. 7. However, the learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to pass necessary order to that regard and if it is not a case of committal in nature, the matter may be remanded back to the learned Trial Court below for further proceeding. 8. With the above observations, the present criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant