GAHC010047312026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.Pet./335/2026 AAJIJUR RAHMAN ALIAS AJIJUL HOQUE S/O ABUL HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILL- LAOGAO, P.O. SOLMARI,P.S. SADAR DIST.NAGAON, ASSAM PIN-782002.

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

2:MD. HAZRAT ALI S/O LT. MOIJUDDIN R/O VILL- LAWGAON P.O. SOLMARI P.S. RUPAHIHAT DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78212 Advocate for the Petitioner : J S AHMED, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. KHAIRUL ISLAM(R2),RAFIKA HUSSAIN(R2)

:: BEFORE ::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

O R D E R

11.03.2026 Heard Mr. J.S. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr.

Khairul Islam, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the Charge Sheet No.42/2017 arising out of Rupahihat P.S. Case No.26/2016 under Sections 366A read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act pending in the court of the Special Judge (POCSO), Nagaon, Assam.

3. On 15.01.2016, the respondent No.2 Md. Hazrat Ali had lodged an FIR before police alleging that his 16 year old daughter, while she was coming back from college, was kidnapped by the present petitioner and another person Md. Rahul Amin.

4. During the period of investigation, the victim girl had stated that she was in love with the present petitioner Ajijul Hoque and therefore eloped with him and got married to him.

5. Today, Mr. Khairul Islam, learned counsel appearing for Md. Hazrat Ali has submitted that his daughter is now major and she has been living peacefully with the present petitioner. Mr. Islam has submitted that the respondent Hazrat Ali has no interest in prosecuting the petitioner in this case.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

7. 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