Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030003842026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./15/2026 Sh. Lalchawimawia S/o Lalbiakhluni R/o East Phaileng Aizawl District, Mizoram Presently at District Jail, Aizawl VERSUS State of Mizoram and 3 Ors. R/b Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Home Department Aizawl, Mizoram 2:The Superintendent of Police 3:The Officer-in-Charge 4:Smt. Rebek Lalengkim Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. F. Lalengliana, Sr. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram for R1-R3 Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 09.06.2026 Heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing an FIR in connection with Sessions Case No. 25/2025 arising out of All Women PS Case No. 92/2025 dated 22.12.2025 under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, read with Sections 64(1)/64(2)(m)/65(1) of BNS filed against the accused petitioner on behalf of the alleged victim by respondent No. 4/informant. 3. The instant case was initiated on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Rebek Lalengkimi of the District Child Protection Unit, Aizawl District, wherein it is alleged that the present petitioner Lalchawimawia enticed the minor victim aged about 14 years from her village to the village of the petitioner and had sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions. 4. On the basis of the said FIR, the aforesaid police case was registered and investigation commenced. In course of such investigation, the statement of the victim as well as other witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer and Page No.# 3/5 furthermore, the statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the learned Judicial Magistrate. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of the victim so recorded under Section 183 BNSS by the Magistrate revealed that no role as alleged in the FIR/charge sheet has been attributed to the petitioner by the victim in that statement. Despite that, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the present petitioner alongwith the co-accused wherein, the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act alongwith Section 64(2)(m)/65(1) BNS has been incorporated as against the present petitioner. 6. Upon perusal of the aforesaid statement recorded before the Magistrate, it is seen that the alleged victim has not implicated the present petitioner for committing any offence but rather she has implicated the co-accused. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the above material omission/contradiction on the part of the victim to implicate the present petitioner, it is quite evident that there was no involvement of the petitioner in the present case and therefore, it is a fit case where this Court in exercise of its inherent powers would quash the criminal proceedings in question, as far as the present petitioner is concerned. Page No.# 4/5 8. Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that based on the FIR and other material on record, even without the statement of the victim under Section 183 of BNSS, there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the questions raised by the petitioner are to be decided at the trial and there is no scope for exercising powers under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the criminal proceeding. 9. I have perused the FIR wherein the petitioner has been squarely implicated for commission of an act of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 14 year old minor girl and the statement of the victim before the Investigating Officer also is in the same line wherein she has implicated the petitioner alongwith the co-accused. 10. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there is no material to proceed against the petitioner or that this is a case of no evidence. The contention made on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS relates to a question of contradiction which, as rightly contended by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, can only be decided at the trial or, at the very least, during the stage of consideration of charge. As is well settled, the statement of the victim under Section 183 of BNSS is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used either for corroboration or Page No.# 5/5 contradiction which again are questions to be considered at the trial. 11. In any event, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I have no hesitation in concluding that no case for quashing of the proceeding has been made out. 12. It is however clarified that it would be open for the petitioner to raise all such contentions as may be available to him before the learned Trial Court at the time of consideration of charge/trial. 13. In view of the above, the instant petition is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant