O R D E R

10.03.2026

Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.1804/2019 under Sections 366A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, Assam.

3. Md. Nurul Islam @ Nur Islam is the informant here. On 16.02.2016, he had lodged an FIR before police stating that on 13.02.2016, his daughter who is a student of Class-IX, was kidnapped by the petitioner Ashadul Haque. Villagers confronted Kasham Ali, the father of the aforesaid Ashadul Hoque. He agreed to bring back the girl of the informant. But, subsequently, failed to do that. The girl was 15 years old at that time.

4. Now, the said victim girl, her father Nurul Islam, Ashadul Hoque and Kasham Ali have come together to this Court to file this petition stating that the victim girl is now 26 years old and she has already married Ashadul Hoque and has given birth to children also. They have stated that the couple is now living happily with their children. Her father Nurul Islam has no grievance against Kasham Ali and Ashadul Hoque.

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 (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 Section155(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 gri