Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010021592026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./170/2026 SALIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O- ALI UDDIN BARBHUIYA R/O- VILL- DAKHIN DARIARGHAT, P.S- RAMNATHPUR, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788165 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:S. NIREN SINGHA S/O- LATE S CHAIKOI SINGHA G.P SECRETARY DARIAGHAT G.P DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN788165 3:X (VICTIM) REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER ANISUR RAHMAN MAZUMDER R/O- VILLAGE- JHALNACHERRA FOREST P.S- RAMNATHPUR DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN788162 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, G UDDIN,P ADHIKARI,H YEASMIN,MR H I CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. N.A. LASKAR,MR. N H BARBHUIYA Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 16.06.2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. I. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. N. H. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3, who is the father of the victim. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR as well as the POCSO case registered as Special (POCSO) Case No. 175/2023 under Section 366 IPC, read with Section 12 of POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned Special Judge Hailakandi. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, an FIR was lodged by the Secretary of Dariarghat Karicherra Gaon Panchayat on 19th of August, 2023, stating inter alia that he had information that a case of child marriage was solemnized at Village Dakshin Dariarghat, P.S. – Ramnathpur in the District of Hailakandi. He also got the information that a minor girl of 15 years of age was given in marriage to an adult person, i.e. the petitioner, who was aged 34 years. On receipt of the said information, the informant along with another visited the place of the accused and enquired the matter but they were informed that the accused had build up a newly constructed house and on reaching the said place, they found that the gate of house closed and on asking the neighbor, they found out that no one was staying in the said house. The police on receipt of the said FIR, registered the case under Sections 9/10/11(1) of Prevention of Child Marriage Act as well as under Sections 5/6/17 of the (POCSO) Act. Page No.# 3/4 4. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted the Charge Sheet on 31.10.2023, and in pursuance thereof, the POCSO case as mentioned above was taken up by the court mentioned above. During the proceeding of the case, exercise was undertaken by the Special Judge, Hailakandi for appearance of the petitioner. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and in her statement; she stated that she had love relationship with the petitioner and that on 10.08.2023, at about 11:00 AM she went to the house of the petitioner and that, on the same day at about 2:00 PM her parents reached the house of the petitioner and brought her back to her home. She further stated that she was not kidnapped by the petitioner and that she went to the house of the petitioner on her own volition. She also stated that there was no physical relationship between her and the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3, i.e., the father of the petitioner states that the respondent no. 3 had filed an affidavit-in- opposition, wherein it is stated that the respondent no. 3 had not lodged the FIR and that without his knowledge, the Secretary of the said Gaon Panchayat had submitted the FIR. He also stated that he had not given in marriage his daughter to the petitioner and that his daughter is still unmarried. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the records, this court finds as follows: The FIR was lodged by the Secretary of the Dariarghat Karicherra Gaon Panchayat only on the information that the child marriage was instituted at the aforesaid place. He was also informed about the name of the victim and the Page No.# 4/4 petitioner but when he and associate reached the place of the petitioner, the petitioner was not found there and on further information, they reached another place where the petitioner was also not found there and without any substantiating materials to the said information they had lodged the FIR and police had also registered the same under the Prevention of Child Marriage Act as well as under The POCSO Act. Further, during the proceeding, the victim had given her statement that none of the allegations as set out in the FIR was attracted. She, in fact, had stated that she had gone her own volition to the house of the petitioner since she was in love relationship with the petitioner but as far as, the offence under the Prevention of Child Marriage Act as well as POCSO Act are concerned the same are not stated by the victim in her statement before the Magistrate. Similarly, the father had also filed the affidavit-in-opposition, stating that he had neither given in marriage his daughter to the petitioner nor had lodged any FIR. 8. In view of the said stand taken by the victim as well as the father of the victim, this court finds it fit that the FIR dated 19.08.2023, the Charge Sheet dated 31.10.2023, are quashed. Further the POCSO case being Special POCSO Case No. 175/2023 along with the orders in the said proceeding are also hereby quashed. 9. The petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant