Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010096532026 2026:GAU-AS:7183 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./710/2026 RIPUL ISLAM AND ANR S/O ABDUL RAHIM R/O- VILL- TITATOLA NIZARAPAR, P.S- LAHARIGHAT, DIST MORIGAON, ASSAM 2: RAUZATUN NEHAR W/O- ABU SHAMA R/O- TITATOLA NIJARAPAR P.S- LAHARIGHAT DIST- MORIGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR. R ALI,U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 25.05.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Bidyut Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State. 2. This a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the proceedings of PRC Case No.697/2025 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-I, Morigaon, Assam. 3. The petitioner no.2, aged about 30 years had lodged a complaint case being C.R. Case No.123/2025 before the Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon against the petitioner no.1. In the said complaint petition dated 07.02.2025, it was alleged that on 02.02.2025, the first petitioner committed rape upon the second petitioner. It was also alleged that the first petitioner committed that act by showing a sharp weapon to the second petitioner. 4. Now, both the petitioners have jointly filed this petition wherein it is stated that the said complaint was filed on false grounds. In fact, the husband of the second petitioner threatened her to divorcer her if she did not file any such complaint against the petitioner no.1. 5. Mr. Ahmed has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was Page No.# 3/5 delivered in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. Etc v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., reported in AIR 1988 SC 709. In paragraph 7 of the said judgment, it is quoted as under: “7. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” 6. Mr. Ahmed further relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Madhukar and Ors., v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. In paragraph 7 of the said judgment, it is held as under: “7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.” Page No.# 4/5 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 8. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 ) 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 Page No.# 5/5 grudge.” 9. Reverting to the case in hand, the prosecutrix is a married woman and she has stated that her husband had put pressure upon her to file this false complaint against the first petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that under the said circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction of the first petitioner in this case. So, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 10. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 11. The criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings of PRC Case No.697/2025 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-I, Morigaon, Assam, is quashed and set aside. JUDGE Comparing Assistant