Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010240102025 2026:GAU-AS:4180 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1333/2025 ZAKIR HUSSAIN TAPADAR SON OF LATE MUSSABBIR ALI TAPADAR RESIDENT OF KAPILIPAR, P.O.- KHARIKHANA, P.S.- LANKA, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR, MR. B HUSSAIN,MR. T HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 24-03-2026 Heard Mr. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 BNSS wherein the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 framing charge against the present petitioner under Page No.# 2/6 Sections 241/324(3)/238 BNS read with Section 3 of the PDPP Act, 1984 has been framed. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel that one FIR was lodged against his son with the allegation of committing penetrative sexual assault on the victim and accordingly the case has already been registered, the charge sheet has been laid and the case is at the stage of trial. 4. After filing of the earlier FIR, another FIR was lodged by one sri Joy Prakash Chouhan, the Headmaster of Kapilipar No.2. L. P. School with the allegation against the present petitioner that on the night of the incident, he visited the house of the informant of the present case and took the School Admission Register from him and thereafter asked for a glass of water, he torn the pages of the Admission Register, particularly for the year 2013-14 of the students and fled away from the place of the incident. On the next day he also threatened the present informant with dire consequences. 5. Mr. Talukdar further submitted that in the earlier case, wherein his son was involved, charge sheet was filed against him as an additional charge sheet with the case filed against his son which was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO along with other Sections. 6. He further submitted that the present petitioner is not at all involved in the alleged offence and it is an admitted fact that on the night of the incident, receiving a phone call from the informant, he visited his house and thereafter after having some talk, he returned back from his house. Thereafter with some false and concocted allegation, the FIR has been lodged against him due to some previous grudge and enmity. 7. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel further submitted that he is a respectable Page No.# 3/6 person in the locality and holding a post of Headmaster of another School within the vicinity of the School of the informant of the present case and due to some earlier grudge the FIR has been lodged with false allegation. He further submitted that vide its order dated 02.08.2025, the learned Special Judge, Hojai has framed charge against the present petitioner under Section 241/324(3)/238 BNS and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. However, considering the charges to be of distinct offences, has been sent before the learned CJM for trial and the Court of learned CJM vide its order dated 16.10.2025 had registered a case against the present petitioner. 8. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel further submitted that there is no material to frame charge against the present petitioner under the said Sections of law and he further submitted that there will be no use of torning the papers from the Admission Register as those also cannot be produced before the Court. Thus, without any reason he cannot torn the pages of the Admission Register as alleged against him. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel accordingly submitted that it is a fit case wherein the entire criminal proceeding including the charge sheet may be set aside and quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 BNSS. 9. Mr. Borthakur, learned APP submitted in this regard that admittedly the present petitioner is not involved in the earlier case lodged against his son, wherein allegation of penetrative sexual assault has been brought against his son and two other. But during that process it has come to the light that the present petitioner had visited the house of the informant of the present case, wherein the victim of the earlier case was studying and for benefit or for some reasons, he torn the pages of the Admission Register pertaining to the year 2013-14 and for which, the case is accordingly registered and charge sheeted. 10. Mr. Borthakur, learned APP submitted that there is no reason to file a false Page No.# 4/6 and concocted case against the present petitioner wherein, the informant has no connection with the petitioner or with the informant of the earlier case. It is a separate and distinct offence for which, though initially it was brought for joint trial but vide the impugned order dated 02.08.2025, the case has been segregated after framing charge against the present petitioner and sent the case for trial before the learned CJM. 11. Mr. Borthakur, learned APP further submitted that there is distinct allegation brought against the present petitioner wherein he damaged the public property by torning the relevant pages of the School Admission Register for the year 2013-14 and considering this aspect of the case, the I.O. filed the charge sheet and finding prima facie case the charge has already been framed against the petitioner. Thus, there is no need of interference or the case is not liable to be set aside and quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 BNSS. 12. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the case record and it is seen that there is no material to show that the case is lodged only under some malafide intention only to harass the present petitioner by the informant who is neither involved in the earlier case nor he is related to the informant of the earlier FIR, lodged against his son. Mere submission that the case has been lodged only due to previous grudge is not at all sufficient to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the present petitioner. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has held as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and Page No.# 5/6 reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 FIR 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. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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 FIR 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.” 14. But here in the instant case there is no material to held that the FIR has been lodged only with previous grudge and enmity, rather, from the submission made by the learned APP and the materials in the case record it is seen that the petitioner alleged to have torn the pages as the victim of the earlier case Page No.# 6/6 studied in the said School. So there may be some relevancy of torning the pages of the School Admission Register pertaining to the year 2013-14. 15. Considering this aspect of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not at all a fit case to set aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 for framing charges against the present petitioner under Sections 241/324(3)/238 BNS read with Section 3 of the PDPP Act, 1984 and also not a fit case to quash the entire criminal proceeding pending against the present petitioner by invoking the power under Section 528 BNSS. 16. Accordingly, this criminal petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant