Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010115872026 2026:GAU-AS:8603 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./859/2026 SRI DHARMENDAR RAJBHAR ALIAS DHARMENDRA RAJBOR ALIAS MAHENDRA RAJBOR AND 2 ORS. SON OF BABON RAJBHAR. 2: SRI KISHAN CHAUHAN SON OF LATE GANESH CHAUHAN 3: SMT PUSHPA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SRI KISHAN CHAUHAN AND WIFE OF DHARMENDAR RAJBHAR. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGEMAZGAON PS- KHERONI DISTWEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSA 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.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 16.06.2026 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 Special POCSO Case No.01/2022 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge POCSO, West Karbi Anglong at Hamren. 3. On 27.01.2021, the petitioner Kishan Chauhan had lodged an FIR before police stating that his 13 year old daughter i.e. the petitioner no.3 was missing while she was going to Kheroni. Later on, the petitioner Kishan Chauhan came to know that the petitioner Dharmendar Rajbhar @ Dharmendar Rajbor had kidnapped the said girl with a false promise of love and affection. 4. The said girl is now 20 years old and she has stated that she was in love with the petitioner Dharmendar Rajbhar and therefore she had eloped with him. According to the girl, she married Dharmendar Rajbhar and now she is living happily. The petitioner Kishan Chauhan, who had lodged the FIR on 27.10.2021, has submitted that he has now accepted Dharmendar Rajbhar as his son-in-law. He claimed that the couple have been living peacefully and he no longer wants his son-in-law to be prosecuted for the aforesaid act. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 6. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has Page No.# 3/4 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 grudge.” 7. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that when the father of the girl does not want to proceed further with the case, this Court is of the opinion Page No.# 4/4 that there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. Thus, allowing such a criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court, would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 8. The criminal petition is allowed. 9. The proceedings of Special POCSO Case No.01/2022 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge POCSO, West Karbi Anglong, at Hamren, is quashed and set aside. JUDGE Comparing Assistant