Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010097712026 2026:GAU-AS:7037 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./704/2026 UDAYAN SAIKIA AND ANR SON OF KIRAN SAIKIA RESIDENT OF KAKOJAN BAM KUKURACHORA, POLICE STATION - TEOK, DISTRICT - JORHAT, PIN -785683, ASSAM. 2: BONITA BHUYAN DAUGHTER OF LATE DINA BHUYAN RESIDENT OF BONAI GAON POLICE STATION - TEOK DISTRICT - JORHAT PIN - 785683 ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. V A CHOWDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 21.05.2026 Heard Mr. V.A. Chowdhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Bidyut Sarma, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing the proceedings of Sessions Case No.71/2025 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, Assam. 3. On 26.11.2024, the informant lady had lodged an FIR before the police stating that she was in a relationship with the other petitioner Udayan Saikia, who was already married to another woman. On an earlier occasion, she had lodged an FIR before the police and the same was registered as Jorhat P.S. Case No.553/2023. In that case, Udayan Saikia was arrested by the police and after being released from jail, he again entered into the life of the informant. He forced her to have physical relationship with him. On most of the occasions, he promised to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her. At the time of filing of the FIR, she was three months pregnant. 4. The petitioner Udayan Saikia had put pressure upon the other petitioner i.e. the informant to give birth to the child. 5. Apart from all those allegations, the informant further alleged that she was physically humiliated by the petitioner Udayan Saikia. 6. Now, both Udayan Saikia and the informant have come together to this Court stating that they have already settled their disputes and are no longer interested in Page No.# 3/4 prosecuting further before the trial court. 7. Mr. Choudhury has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 wherein the Supreme Court had held that where the question involved is purely personal in nature, the court should ordinarily accept terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigations. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 9. 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 Page No.# 4/4 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.” 10. This Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), is applicable in the present case. Since the so-called victim girl has come forward to state that she no longer wants to proceed further with this case, there is no possibility of conviction of anybody in this case in future. Thus, allowing such a criminal proceeding to continue before a trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 11. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. 12. Accordingly, the proceedings of the Sessions Case No.71/2025 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, Assam, is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant