Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010155952026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1067/2026 ABDUS SALAM ALIAS ABDUL SALAM AND ANR SON OF LATE ABDUL KADIR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUTHIKHAITI, P.S. RUPAHIHAT, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM. 2: JAKIR @ JAKIR HUSSAIN SON OF LATE ABDUL RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUTHIKHAITI P.O. KAWAIMARI P.S. RUPAHIHAT DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H GUPTA, MR. KHAIRUL ISLAM,MR. N HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 25.08.2026 Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. K. Baishya Page No.# 2/7 the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the chargesheet and the proceeding of the Special POCSO Case No. 26/2026, pending before the Additional Session Judge cum Special Judge POCSO, Nagaon. 3. In this present case, both the accused person, namely Abdus Salam @ Abdul Salam as well as the father of the victim, namely Jakir @ Jakir Hussain are the petitioners. It is noticed that this present case is a joint petition filed by both the accused person and the aggrieved person for quashing of the charge sheet and the case instituted thereafter. The case of the petitioners is that on 20.11.2025, the father of the victim, namely Jakir Hussain, lodged an Ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Kawaimari Police Out-Post stating inter alia that the petitioner No.1, took his minor daughter, who was 9 years of age, from road and removed her clothes with the intent to outrage her modesty and that the petitioner No.1 gave Rs. 15 (Rupees Fifteen) to the victim and told her not to discuss the matter in her house. However, the informant stated that upon reaching home, the victim told the incident to her grandmother, and when she was revealing the incident, the petitioner No.1 had tightly covered her mouth with his hand. Thereafter, he stated that upon being informed, he lodged the Ejahar. The police, on receipt of the Ejahar, registered the case as Rupahihat Police Station Case No.386/2025, under Section 317(2)/74/75(2)/76 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The police on completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet on 31.12.2025, arraying the petitioner No.1 as the accused person. Thereafter, on completion of necessary requirements, the learned Trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner and the trial Page No.# 3/7 commenced. It is this charge sheet as well as the subsequent proceedings that are put to challenge by the petitioner in the instant proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a bare perusal of the FIR as well as the statement of the victim, both before the police and the Magistrate, it is clear that no offense under Section 10 of the POCSO Act was committed upon the victim. The learned counsel submits that although in the First Information Report, it was stated that the petitioner No.1 had removed the clothes of the victim and gave some money not to disclose the fact to anyone but in the statement before the police, the victim stated that while she was coming by the road, Petitioner No.1 called her inside the house, to which she agreed and went inside and that the petitioner No.1, upon reaching inside the home touched the body of the victim, showed her, his affection and started speaking with her. She also stated that she got irritated when the petitioner No.1 touched her body and that she came home, informed her grandmother and that grandmother informed the nearby people and also to her father. She also stated that the villagers informed her father with a wrong impression, that Petitioner No.1 had done bad activities on her. She clarified in the said statement that Petitioner No.1, spoke to her which cannot be considered to be bad and that he had not tortured her. 5. The learned counsel also has placed the statement of the victim recorded by the Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS. It is seen that the Magistrate after examining the competency of the victim recorded her statement in a question and answer form and in the answer to the query as to why she had come to the court, the victim replied that while she was walking on the road, the petitioner No.1 called her inside the home to which she went and that the Page No.# 4/7 petitioner No.1, loved her and touched her body to which she stated that she got irritated and that she informed the same to her grandmother and that grandmother told it to her father over telephone. She also stated that on a wrong impression that the petitioner No.1 had done bad activities, the villagers handed over the petitioner to the police. 6. Apart from the said statements, which did not reflect offense under the POCSO Act, the learned counsel has also placed the settlement reached between the father of the victim and the petitioner No.1. He placed reliance on an intimation dated 20.11.2025 given to the Officer-in-Charge of the Kawaimari Police out-post, wherein, it was stated that the father of the victim had filed the FIR out of anger and that the president of the village committee stated that no unethical things had happened between petitioner No.1 and the victim. 7. It is also stated that there was a village Mel and in the said discussion, the petitioner No.1 was warned not to commit such acts in future. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the chargesheet as well as the further proceeding be quashed. Mr. H. Gupta has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in “Attorney General for India vs. Satish & Another”, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 545. 8. Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that cases under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed on settlement as has been held by the Supreme Court but at the same time, he also submits that in case the offense under the POCSO Act is not attracted from the facts of the case, coupled with the fact that the trial would serve no purpose, he submits that the case can be quashed. Page No.# 5/7 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels and have gone through the records. In the FIR dated 12.11.2025, which was lodged by the father of the victim, it was stated by the said father that petitioner No.1 had removed her clothes and gave her money not to disclose the fact to anyone but the said statement was only of the father's. It can be seen that the father came to know about the fact either from his mother or from the villagers. The statement of the victim was recorded by the police immediately after the lodging of the Ejahar and before the police, she stated that the petitioner No.1 had just displayed his affection towards her and that he spoke to her and that she further stated that when he touched her body she got angry and that she came and told her grandmother about that. In her statement before the Magistrate also, she stated similarly that petitioner No.1 had expressed his affection towards her and touched her body to which she got irritated. In both of her statement, she clearly stated that, on a wrong impression or a wrong notion, FIR was lodged before the police. It is also seen in the intimation given to the police, the father of the victim as well as the petitioner No.1, had settled the issue before the discussion held by the villagers and it was seen that no bad act was committed upon the victim by petitioner No.1, much less sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Section 10 of the POCSO Act for the offense of which charges are framed against the petitioner is reproduced below:- 10. Punishment for aggravated sexual assault.— “Whoever, commits aggravated sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." Page No.# 6/7 10. A bare perusal of Section 10 would make it clear that whoever commits aggravated sexual assault on a minor will be punished with the prescribed punishment. 11. In that view of the matter, the definition of aggravated sexual assault needs to be seen. Aggravated sexual assault is defined under Section 9 of the POCSO Act and the relevant provision would be Sub-section-(m), where it is provided that whoever commits sexual assault on a child below 12 years would be responsible for committing aggravated sexual assault. 12. Therefore, the definition of sexual assault has to be again seen which is provided under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. It is provided that whoever with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the said parts would be held responsible for committing the offense of sexual assault and it also covers any act with sexual intent. 13. In the instant case, however, it is seen that the petitioner No.1 had expressed his affection towards the victim as stated by the victim herself and the victim had reiterated that no bad act was committed upon her. She also stated that the petitioner No.1, was speaking to her, which again is not a bad act. As such, Section 10 or any other provision of POCSO Act is not attracted in the instant case. Further, there is nothing in the statement of the victim that the petitioner No.1 had demonstrated any sexual intent on his part towards the victim. 14. In view of what has been stated above, this court therefore deems it fit that the chargesheet laid in the instant case vide Chargesheet No.39/2025, Page No.# 7/7 dated 31.12.2025, along with the order framing charge as well as the proceeding in connection with POCSO Case No. 26/2026, pending before the Special Judge POCSO, Nagaon is set aside and any subsequent orders passed in the said proceeding are also set aside and quashed. 15. The Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant