Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010036652026 2026:GAU-AS:3910 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./301/2026 SHRI DIPLU BASUMATARY AND 2 ORS. SON OF PROFULLA BASUMATARY PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- RONGKUT MATI KHULA, P.O. RONGKUT,P.S. HOWRAGHAT, (UTTAR BORBIL OUT POST), DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN NO. 782481. 2: SHRI UTJAL TAMANG S/O UTTAM BAHADUR TAMANG PERMANENT RESIDENT OF - VILL- RONGKUT SELAWOR RONGPI GAON P.O. RONGKUT P.S. HOWRAGHAT (UTTAR BORBIL OUT POST) DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN NO. 782481. 3: SHRI BISHAL TAMANG S/OLAK BAHADUR TAMANG PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- RONGKUT NEPALI GAON P.O. RONGKUT P.S. HOWRAGHAT (UTTAR BORBIL OUT POST) DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN NO. 782481 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K MURRY, MS S.DAS,MS P TOKBIPI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE Page No.# 2/2 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 18.03.2026 Heard Mr. N. K. Murry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing of Criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.141/2025, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistarte, Diphu, Assam. On 24.12.2024, at about 11.10 pm Police got an information that a mob of 40-50 persons were assaulting one person named Khatai Mia. Police reached the spot. Police was unable to control the mob, and therefore, reinforcements were to be called. Ultimately, Police had to fire in the air to disperse the mob. The mob was so violent that the Police vehicle was also attacked and damages were also caused to the Police. The present petitioner Dipnu Basumatary was the leader of the mob and the other petitioners were his associates. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335”, the Supreme Court has held as under: “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.” Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a rarest of the rare case for exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant