Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010053452026 2026:GAU-AS:4661 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./478/2026 SURENDRA SINGH AND 3 ORS. SON OF LATE SRIPAD SINGH 2: RAJESH KUMAR SINGH SON OF SURENDAR SINGH 3: SMT. RAJ KISHORI SINGH WIFE OF SRI SURENDAR SINGH 4: SMT. MANJU DEVI WIFE OF SRI KAYASH SINGH ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILL- MAJBASTI P.S. KHERONI DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMT. RAM KUMARI DEVI WIFE OF SRI BHAGABAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILL- MAJBASTI P.S. KHERONI DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K KASHYAB, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 01.04.2026 Heard Mr. K. Kashyab, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.233/2019 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, West Karbi Anglong at Hamren. 3. On 19.11.2018, the respondent Ram Kumari Devi had lodged an FIR before the police alleging that when her cow entered into the vegetable cultivation of the petitioners, namely- Rajesh Singh, Surendra Singh, Raj Kishori Devi and Smti. Manju Devi, they have become angry and for that reason, assaulted Ram Kumari Devi and her son, causing injuries. 4. Police registered the case being Kheroni P.S. Case No.141/2018. 5. It may be stated that on the same day, the aforementioned Manju Devi also lodged an FIR before police alleging that the cow of Ram Kumari Devi had entered into their brinjal cultivation field and destroyed their plants. Manju Devi has further alleged that on that issue, they had a quarrel with the family of Ram Kumari Devi. She further alleges that Ram Kumari Devi and her family had assaulted her and her family members. 6. Police registered this case as Kheroni P.S. case No.142/2018. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. Page No.# 3/4 8. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads 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 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 channelised 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.” 9. Reverting to the case in hand, the FIR lodged by Ram Kumari Devi depicts a Page No.# 4/4 prima facie case against the present petitioners. Therefore, this is not a fit case for exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The criminal petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant