Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010131702023 2026:GAU-AS:6119 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./586/2023 KATARA CHANDU LAL DEVAJI @ SRI CHANDU LAL S/O LATE DEVAJI NANJI KATARA R/O NAVAGAM, DHANELA P.S. VIJAY NAGAR, DIST. SABARKANTHA, GUJURAT. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM 2:SMT. BHAVNA GARG W/O SIDHARTHA SR DPO LUMDING R/O P-106A OFFICER COLONY LUMDING P.S. LUMDING DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PIN-78244 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MR. A M KHAN,MR. A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. D GOGOI, Amicus Curiae for R-2 Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 05.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2. 2. By way of this Criminal Petition under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks setting aside and quashing of PRC Case No. 2141/2022, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 9, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, arising out of the impugned Charge-Sheet No. 14/2022 dated 30.04.2022, corresponding to Guwahati GRPS P.S. Case No. 57/2022 under Section 354 IPC. 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR on 24.04.2022 alleging, inter alia, that on the said date, while she was travelling from Lumding to Guwahati by Rajdhani Express, the petitioner attempted to pull down her lower garments and was caught red-handed while allegedly sexually harassing her and outraging her modesty. On the basis of the said FIR, Guwahati GRPS Case No. 57/2022 under Section 354 IPC was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly apprehended on 24.04.2022 in connection with the said case and was subsequently released on bail by this Court on 19.05.2022 in BA No. 982/2022. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Page No.# 3/8 Charge-Sheet No. 14/2022 dated 30.04.2022 against the petitioner under Section 354 IPC. 5. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and baseless, and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the said case. He further submits that respondent No. 2, after lodging the FIR, did not participate in the investigation and, in fact, did not appear to give her statement under Section 164 CrPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is further contended that, in the absence of participation by the complainant, the complaint ought to be set aside and quashed. He also submits that due to an altercation between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 regarding the seating arrangement in the train on the date of occurrence, the present criminal case has been falsely instituted against the petitioner. 6. Per contra, Mr. S. H. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that a prima facie offence is made out from the averments in the complaint. He further submits that, upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings ought not to be interdicted at the threshold, particularly in view of the serious allegations regarding outraging the modesty of a woman. It is further submitted that merely because the complainant did not appear to give her statement under Section 164 CrPC would not, by itself, render the complaint baseless. 7. Similarly, Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that the complaint, on the face of it, discloses the commission of a criminal offence. 8. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on Page No.# 4/8 record. The power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing a complaint pending before the Trial Court is well settled. It is apt at this juncture to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein for ready reference: “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 suffi-ciently 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 cog- nizable 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 com- plaint 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 cog-nizable 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 pru- Page No.# 5/8 dent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is suffi-cient 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 con-tinuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing effica-cious 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. 103. 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.” 9. In the present case, the complaint reads as under: “ To The GRP Sub: FIR against ChanduLal, ASI, BSF. I BhabanaGarg, W/O: Sr DPO Lumding was travelling in Rajdhani, one man named ChanduLal who is ASI in BSF BN 171 personnel no.876441961 touched me in appropriately many illness and tried to take out my lower once to which I raised alarm and my fellow passengers details of which I have given to RPF helped me out. I feel very humiliated. Kindly impose strictest punishment. After crossing Jagiroad around 5 PM this incident happened and I called RPF and TT. Chandulal has sexually harassed me while travelling from Lumding to Ghy by train no-12423, on seat no. 25 coach no A4 (24-04-2022). Page No.# 6/8 9957553600 Bhawana Garg-9070634945. Address-P-106A officer colony Lumding W/O: Sr DPO Lumding, PS Lumding Dist: Hojai, Assam. Received and registered vide Ghy GRPS Case No. 57/2022 dated 24/4/22 MadanChKalita, SI Officer In Charge Guwahati GRPS, Date 24/4/2022”. 10. It appears that the complainant has specifically alleged that the accused touched her inappropriately at several places and attempted to remove her lower garments. Upon raising alarm, fellow passengers intervened, the accused was apprehended, and the complainant felt humiliated. Prima facie, an offence is made out. It is also evident that the Investigating Officer, upon collecting prima facie materials against the petitioner, submitted the charge-sheet. 11. In view of the above, quashing of the complaint at this stage is not justified. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the complainant did not participate in the investigation is devoid of merit, as she had already given her statement before the Investigating Officer and lodged the FIR. 12. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the complainant did not participate in the investigation, particularly by not giving a statement under Section 164 CrPC, does not persuade this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. It is trite that the evidentiary value of statements and the Page No.# 7/8 effect of any alleged non-participation in the investigation are matters to be examined during trial. It is apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in State of T.N. v. Thirukkural Perumal, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 449. “4. M.S.K. Shanmugovol Chettiyar lodged a first information report at P.S. Tallakulam against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 147/148/342/323/395/506(ii) and 109 IPC. Investigation was taken in hand and some evidence was collected by the investigating agency. The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC in the High Court and by the impugned order the petition was allowed and the proceedings emanating from Crime Case No. 246 of 1992 (supra) were quashed. From a bare perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge it appears that while quashing the proceedings, reliance has been placed upon some evidence collected by the investigating agency during the investigation. The approach of the learned Judge in relying upon such evidence, which is yet to be produced before the trial court, to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime Case No. 246 of 1992 (supra) was not proper. The power of quashing an FIR and criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the courts. Indeed, the High Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the first information report and criminal proceedings, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this Court in various judgments (reference in this connection may be made with advantage to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal') but the same has to be done with circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner. The court, is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation only while dealing with a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking the quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings. The learned Single Judge apparently fell into an error in evaluating the genuineness and reliability of the allegations made in the FIR on the Page No.# 8/8 basis of the evidence collected during the investigation. The order of the learned Single Judge cannot, therefore, be sustained. This appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is hereby set aside.” 13. Hence, non-appearance of the complainant for recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC cannot, by itself, be a ground for quashing the complaint. 14. Accordingly, the stay of the criminal proceedings stands vacated. 15. The trial of the case shall proceed in accordance with law. 16. With the aforesaid direction, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant