Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010114592026 2026:GAU-AS:8185 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./819/2026 HIRU PRASAD DEKA AND 3 ORS. S/O- LATE PADMA DEKA, R/O VILLAGE- BORKOLA, P.S.- RAHA, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, 2: THANESWAR HANDIQUE SON OF LATE AJIT HANDIQUE 4TH APBN KAHILIPARA KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN-781019. 3: DEBASHIS DEKA SON OF PRADIP KUMAR DAS NEAR GURU DUAR SING GAON BORKOLA NAGAON PIN 782144 ASSAM. 4: DEBALATA DEKA D/O HIRU PRASAD DEKA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/O VILLAGE-BORKOLA P.S.-NAGAON DIST.-NAGAON ASSAM. (VICTIM AND ADOPTED DAUGHTER OF PETITIONER NO.1 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 2:GAUTAM SARMA S/O LATE BISHESWAR SARMA DEPUTY DIRECTOR AMAR ASSAM NEWSPAPER G.L. PUBLICATION ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST.-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781007 (INFORMANT) Advocate for the Petitioner : M RAHMAN, MR. A DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. A. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No.223/2020 arising out of All Women Police Station Case No.134/2019 pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 3. The FIR of this case was lodged by Gautam Sarma, the Deputy Director of Amar Assam News Paper at Guwahati. The story narrated in the FIR revolves around a girl student named Debalata Deka of Panbazar High School. Her father died when she was very young and her mother remarried. After the marriage of her mother, the said girl Page No.# 3/4 was staying with her aunt Banti Handique. The husband of Banti Handique used to sexually molest the said girl. It may be stated that Banti Handique is an employee of Assam Police. Thaneswar Handique, the husband of Banti Handique used to stay with a high ranking Government official. 4. Debalata Deka made a complaint to her teacher in the school. The said girl thereafter started to stay with one of her friend. She declined to return to the house of her uncle Thaneswar Handique. 5. On 20.09.2019, Banti Handique came to the school of Debalata. She was wearing police uniform and forcefully took away Debalata form her school. 6. Being a journalist and the law abiding citizen, Gautam Sarma had lodged an FIR before the police alleging the aforesaid facts. 7. Police registered the case as All Women Police Case No.134/2019 . The case was charge sheeted and at present the case being Sessions Case No.223/2020 is pending for disposal in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 8. Now, the aforesaid Thaneswar Handique along with Hiru Prasad Deka, Debashis Deka and Debalata Deka have come together to this Court praying for quashing the said criminal proceedings. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 10. 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 Page No.# 4/4 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 grudge.” 11. Reverting to the case in hand, the FIR in this case, narrates a clear prima facie case against Thaneswar Handique. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner Hiru Prasad Deka and Debashis Deka are strangers to this case and they are not entitled to have any say in this case. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The criminal petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant