Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010189652025 2026:GAU-AS:4831 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1040/2025 SANJAY PAUL S/O MANORANJAN PAUL RESIDENT OF MILANPUR, PS SONAPUR, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 782402 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR K THAKUR,S YESMIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 01.04.2026 1. Heard Ms. S. Yesmin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. Invoking Section 528 of BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 03.04.2025 in connection with Sonapur PS Case No. 62 of 2025 under Section 85 of BNS, which was registered based on an FIR dated 3/4/2025, lodged by the victim woman herself, who is stated to have subsequently died. Page No.# 2/8 3. The investigation of the case resulted in a charge-sheet against the petitioner as the sole accused who was sent up for trial vide CS No. 111/25 dated 31/8/2025 under Section 85 BNS (corresponding to earlier Section 498A IPC). 4. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit bringing on record the charge-sheet and now seeks quashing of the entire proceedings being PRC No. 4082 of 2025, corresponding to CS No. 111/25 arising out of Sonapur PS Case No. 62 of 2025. 5. The scanned record has been received. 6. The PRC case is now stated to be at the stage of appearance and the first date is fixed on 25/05/2026 for appearance. As mentioned above, the case originally arose out of an FIR dated 3/4/25, lodged by the victim Mousumi Paul, who was the wife of the accused at Sonapur PS on 03.04.2025 alleging mental torture and harassment on her by the accused/husband. As a result on 14th March, 2025 on the day of Holi, the deceased set herself on fire. Eventually the informant died on 17.04.2025 at GMCH during treatment. 7. It is alleged in the FIR that she was married with the petitioner for 14 years and ever since marriage, during this period, her husband/petitioner had inflicted mental torture and harassment upon her continuously. It is also alleged that due to such mental torture, on 14/03/2025 she set herself on fire. 8. As per the death certificate annexed to the petition, the victim expired in GMCH on 16/04/2025 due to burn injuries. However, as already stated the charge sheet has been filed only under Section 85 BNS. Page No.# 3/8 9. I have perused the narration in the charge sheet. The IO, upon completion of investigation has said that upon finding sufficient materials the case has been charge-sheeted under Section 85 BNS and the petitioner sent up for trial. In the scanned record, a statement of the victim, purportedly a dying declaration is available and in the said dying declaration, she has stated about sustaining burn injuries in an accidental fire from the cooking gas while she was in the kitchen. She has mentioned that no one is responsible for her death. 10. In any case, at this stage that aspect has become somehow secondary as no provision other than Section 85 BNS has been given against the petitioner. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 161 C.P.C (180 BNS) during investigation and in that statement also stated that her husband used to keep quarreling with her and scolding her. 11. The principles governing quashing of the criminal proceeding are well settled ever since the fundamental principles were laid down in the foundational judgment of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. Para 102 thereof may be reproduced herein below: “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 have given 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 Page No.# 4/8 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.” 12. One of the leading cases on the law regarding quashing of FIR is the decision in M/S Neeharika, Pvt. Vs the State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918. The relevant paragraph 33 may be reproduced here in below: Page No.# 5/8 “33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: 33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence. 33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences............................................. 33.18. Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 13. In terms of the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure (supra), it is clear that the threshold for quashing an FIR is rather high and an FIR would be liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers by this Court, if the allegations taken on their face also do not make out an offense. 14. As regards the quashing of a charge sheet, the same would be justified, if the materials on which the IO submits a final form by way of a charge-sheet do not make out the offences and would not justify sending up the person for trial. It is well settled that during investigation, the IO collects various kinds of evidence such as statements of witnesses, seizure Page No.# 6/8 of documents and material objects; recording of statement before a Magistrate; gathering of electronic evidence etc. When a Court is called upon to quash a charge sheet laid after completion of investigation, the materials collected by investigation have to be seen and if the materials taken individually as well as cumulatively do not make out the offenses mentioned in the charge-sheets, then it would be justified to quash such a charge-sheet. 15. In this regard, a reference may also be made to para 16 of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706 which is reproduced below: “16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237]. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 16. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, in the FIR the victim has mentioned about her long marriage of 14 years and stated about being subjected to mental abuse ever since her marriage. In the statement before police also recorded during investigations she has stated about the petitioner continuously quarreling with her and scolding her. Page No.# 7/8 17. Before proceeding further, the Section 85 BNS may be reproduced herein below: “Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband or a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.” 18. It is well settled that cruelty within the meaning of Section 85 BNS (earlier Section 498A IPC) is not just physical cruelty, but mental cruelty falls within its ambit as well. The test of mental cruelty would not be the test of a hypersensitive mind but what is perceived as mental pain/pong by an ordinary reasonable mind. If the allegations of the victim are accepted, it would mean that she was subjected to quarrels and scolding over the long period of her marriage and if that be so, prima facie it could constitute an act of mental cruelty. 19. Therefore, I am of the considered view that perhaps it would be wrong to say that the Investigating Officer laid charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 85 BNS for the offense of matrimonial cruelty without there being any ingredients in the materials revealed by the investigation including the FIR. 20. It may also be mentioned that during investigation, no family member from the side of the victim was examined, even though she had expired under some questionable circumstances and despite her dying declaration exonerating the petitioner. 21. Therefore, apart from the FIR not satisfying the test of being bereft of the ingredients of any offense, it cannot also be said that the charge- sheet is not based on any materials whatsoever. Page No.# 8/8 22. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the above discussion, I do not find sufficient merit in this Criminal Petition to quash the criminal proceedings at this stage itself and hence, the criminal petition stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant