Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010112152026 2026:GAU-AS:7940 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./806/2026 SRI JUBIN BORDOLOI AND ANR S/O DHAN BORDOLOI, VILLAGEDOMAL, P.S. MORIGAON, DISTRICT- MORIGAON, ASSAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BORGHAT DEODHAR, P.S. NAGAON SADAR, DISTRICT-NAGAON, ASSAM. 2: SMT. NEHA SANGMA D/O JAMES SANGMA W/O JUBIN BORDOLOI PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL-KHERONI MAJGAON P.S. KHERONI DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BORGHAT DEODHAR P.S. NAGAON SADAR DIST. NAGAON ASSAM (INFORMANT) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORA, MS R MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. R. Bora, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned 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.13/2024(T-II) arising out of Kheroni P.S. Case No.01/2024 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, West Karbi Anglong at Hamren. 3. On 06.01.2024, the second petitioner Ms. Neha Sangma had lodged an FIR before police wherein she claimed that she was maintaining a relationship with the first petitioner Jubin Bordoloi for a period of two years. In the month of January, 2023, Jubin Bordoloi called her to meet him in the house of a friend of his. They met there accordingly. While inside the house, Jubin Bordoloi had removed the clothes of the girl and took her half naked photographs. The girl asked him to delete the photographs. But Jubin Bordoloi did not do so. At one point of time, Jubin Bordoloi threatened the girl that he will upload those photographs in social media. 4. One particular day, thereafter, Jubin Bordoloi again called the girl to a hotel where he had forcible sexual relationship with her. He even videographed the entire incident. 5. Jubin Bordoloi allegedly sent those videos to the brother of the girl and also threatened that he will upload those photographs in social media. The informant girl Page No.# 3/5 has alleged that because of the conduct of Jubin Bordoloi, she has been mentally ill. 6. Today, Jubin Bordoloi and the girl have come together to this Court by filing this petition. They have alleged that they have settled their disputes and no longer interested in prosecuting the petitioner Jubin Bordoloi. 7. Mr. Goswami has objected to the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the allegations brought in the FIR are serious in nature. 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 (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. Paragraphs 102 and 103 of the judgment read 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 Page No.# 4/5 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. 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.” 10. The Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise. 11. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that both the petitioners are young persons and have long future ahead of them. They have settled their disputes. Under the given circumstances, there is no possibility of conviction of any person in this case. Therefore, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 12. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 13. Accordingly, the proceedings of Sessions Case No.13/2024(T-II) arising out of Kheroni P.S. Case No.01/2024 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, West Karbi Anglong at Hamren, is quashed and set aside. Page No.# 5/5 The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant