A third party cannot file a quashing petition in criminal cases unless authorized, as established in the court's analysis.

Heard Mr. B . Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.

J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under Section 528 read with Section 438 & 442 of the BNSS , 2023 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of Changsari P.S. Case No. 198/2022, under Sections 420/406/471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the mother of one Pratisha Sharma, who has been implicated as an accused in connection with Changsari P.S. Case No. 198/2022, under Sections 420/406/471 of the Indian Penal Code, and vide the present petition, it is prayed by the petitioner for quashing of the case registered against her daughter, namely, Pratisha Sharma. It is stated that the daughter of the petitioner is a Canadian citizen since the year 2020 and got married to the respondent No. 2, who is also a Canadian citizen, in the year 2012 at Guwahati. But thereafter they got judicially separated. Further it is stated that since February, 2016, there was a Court proceeding pending before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada for custody of the child- Ms. Diya Sharma and the respondent No. 2 got the order in his favour. Thereafter, with some false and concocted allegation, the respondent No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-In-Charge, Changsari Police Station, which is numbered as Changsari P.S. Case No. 198/2022, under Sections 420/406/471 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. It is further submitted by Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the said F.I.R. was lodged only with an intention to harass the daughter of the petitioner, though there is no involvement of her daughter in the alleged offence. It is alleged by the respondent No. 2 that the Deed of Agreement, as mentioned in the said F.I.R., which was produced before the Court of Canada through the engaged counsel by the daughter of the petitioner, is a forged document bearing no signature of the executors as at the time of execution of the said deed, the executors were in Canada. However, he submitted that there is no prima facie case against the daughter of the petitioner and in the F.I.R. also, it is not stated that the daughter of the petitioner has been involved for commission of the forgery in respect of the alleged deed of agreement. Mere presentation of the said agreement by the learned engaged counsel of the daughter of the petitioner cannot constitute an offence of forgery that too the said deed was executed on a day when the daughter of the petitioner herself was in Canada and the respondent No. 2 also was in Canada on very day of execution of the said deed. The proceeding initiated against the daughter of the petitioner arising out the said F.I.R. is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and will also hamper the just decision of the Court which is pending before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada since the year 2016 between the daughter of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a fit case wherein the F.I.R. of Changsari P.S. Case No. 198/2022, under Sections 420/406/471 of the Indian Penal Code, is liable be set aside and quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 BNSS .

5. Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, without going into the merit of the case, has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable. It is submitted by him that the petitioner is a stranger to this case and she also filed the affidavit in this case on behalf of her daughter without any authoriza