Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010059262025 2026:GAU-AS:14028 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./366/2025 SAMINUL ISLAM SIDDIQUE @ SAMINUR ISLAM S/O EFAZ UDDIN SHEIKH R/O WARD NO. 5, CHAPAR DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN-783371 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SAKINA KHATUN D/O SOLEMAN KHAN R/O VILL-FILIMARI PT. I P.S.CHAPAR DIST.DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78332 Advocate for the Petitioner : J S AHMED, MR. KHAIRUL ISLAM,RAFIKA HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. N MAHAJAN, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. R. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. N. Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent no. 2/informant- cum-victim. 2. Invoking the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner is seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pertaining – Chapar P.S. Case No. 191 of 2024, resulting in charge sheet No. 189 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024 and the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Bilasipara. 3. The facts in brief are that an FIR was lodged by the informant woman at the Chapar police station, naming 5 accused persons, including the petitioner as A1 and his family members as A2 to A5. The allegation was that since 2023, the petitioner and the informant were having a love affair, and with a promise of marriage, he had physical relationship with her. It is further alleged that on 18.11.2024, with the assurance of marry, the petitioner called her to his house but upon going there, he told her that he would not marry her, and thereafter the other accused persons named in the FIR who are his family members, assaulted her and drove her out of the house. 4. The case was registered and investigated and resulted in a charge sheet against only the petitioner (A1), and the other FIR named accused Page No.# 3/6 persons were not sent up for trial. 5. The charge sheet was filed under Section 69/308(2) BNS, 2023. Cognizance was taken and summoning order issued, and the case is presently stated to be at the stage of appearance. There is no order of stay. 6. The primary contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, that the petitioner and the informant were having a love affair and subsequently their marriage did not take place, due to which the informant lodged the instant case vindictively against him. Drawing attention to the narration in the charge sheet, the learned counsel submits that the medical examination report in the context of allegation of assault revealed an opinion of no injury. It is also pointed out and submitted from the charge sheet that in the context of her allegation of being subjected to physical relations, she was taken for medical examination, but the same was refused by her. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that though penal provision regarding extortion is made, but in the FIR, there is no mentioned about any demand for money. The learned counsel cites the decision of Biswajyoti Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in (2025) 0 Supreme (SC) 600 and draws attention to Para 20 which reads as follows – “20. We find that there is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour. Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exits, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of fall out. It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law, and it is under such circumstances, that we deem fit to terminate the proceedings at the stage Page No.# 4/6 of charge itself.” 8. It is submitted that the factual matrix of this case is very similar to what was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that the prosecution initiated by the informant/respondent no. 2 is of a similar nature and also liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention to the additional affidavit, submits that in the meantime he came across certain photographs in social media indicating that respondent no. 2 had got married to another person. 9. Mr. Mahajan, the learned Amicus Curiae taking the Court through the FIR contends that going by the narration of facts in the FIR, the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, and therefore, though penal provision of POCSO Act has not been given in the case register or in the charge sheet – the factual matrix regarding the age revealed from the materials prima facie makes out a case under POCSO. 10. Mr. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor drawing attention to the FIR, submit that from a bare reading of the same and the time periods indicated therein, it is revealed that the victim was about 17 years at the time the alleged incident started. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that it is doubtful whether inherent powers can be exercised in view of materials indicating that the victim girl might have been a minor when the incident started. 11. I have given my consideration to the materials, the submissions and perused the decision cited. 12. In the case of Biswajyoti Chatterjee (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has noted the tendency of some people initiating criminal Page No.# 5/6 proceedings when consensual relationships subsequently turns sour, and that in such circumstances, the Apex Court was pleased to quash the matter in that particular case. 13. In the instant case, the informant has stated about the love affair with the petitioner and his refusal to marry her subsequently. From her statement also, I find that the relationship prima facie appears to be consensual. The demand of money is mentioned only in her statement under Section 183 BNSS rather than in the FIR. 14. One peculiar aspect which has emerged from our statement before learned Magistrate is that upon going to his house on 20.11.2024, even after he told her that he would not marry and went away from his house, she continued staying in their house and again indulged in physical relationship with him. 15. In the charge sheet, the I/O has stated that during the course of investigation, certificate-cum-mark sheet of the victim was seized from the Board of Secondary Education, and in the same, the date of birth is mentioned as 20.11.2006. A copy of the said certificate is available in the scanned TCR, and upon perusing the same, I find the mention of 20.11.2006 as the date of birth. 16. In the FIR, the informant-cum-victim, has stated about the accused petitioner indulging in physical relationship with her since about 1 year from 2023. In the statement under section 183 BNSS, she has not stated on those lines and stated that the petitioner did physical relationship with her on 20.11.2024 at his house at Chapar. 17. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that while exercising Page No.# 6/6 jurisdiction under 528 BNSS, in a matter where quashing of the criminal proceedings is sought for, the Court can neither conduct mini trial nor undertake an exercise in the nature of parallel trial. 18. Though some materials have emerged about possible consensual relationship between the parties; nevertheless, as rightly contended by the Amicus Curiae and the Additional Public Prosecutor, the bare facts that emerges from the FIR indicating the victim girl to be about 17 years at the time the alleged incident started cannot be overlooked. This would be so even if the penal provisions of POCSO had not been given at the time of filing the charge sheet. 19. Needless to say that a trial court looks at the holistic picture before taking a decision in the further course of the proceedings. Therefore, despite some infirmities in the materials which seem to go in favor of the petitioner, but keeping in view the available factual matrix regarding the purported age or possible minority of the victim at the time of the alleged incident – it would not be correct to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash the pending criminal proceedings. To that extent, the decision in Biswajyoti Chatterjee (supra) could not come to the aid of the petitioner, as in that case, Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with a situation of consensual relationship of adults. 20. Resultantly, in the given facts and circumstances, the instant criminal petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant