##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010065002026

2026:GAU-AS:4660

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

Case No. : Crl.Pet./477/2026

SAMSUN NEHAR AND 2 ORS.

D/O SOFIOR RAHMAN, W/O MALEQUE UDDIN, R/O KALABARI UNDER RAJABALA BHALUKKANDI REVENUE VILLAGE, PO PATAKATA, PS SOUTH

SALMARA, DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783127

2: MALEQUE UDDIN S/O MOYNAL HOQUE R/O KALABARI UNDER RAJABALA BHALUKKANDI REVENUE VILLAGE

PO PATAKATA PS SOUTH SALMARA

DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 783127

3: MANIR UDDIN ALIAS MONER ALI S/O LT DINA SK R/O TUMNI SIMLAKANDI

PO TUMNI PS SOUTH SALMARA

DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 78312

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, MR A ALIM SK,MR. A W MONDAL,MR K ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

Page No.# 2/4

:: BEFORE ::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

O R D E R

01.04.2026

Heard Mr. A. Alim Sk., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, 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 (P) Case No.38/2024 pending in the court of the

Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar.

3. On 02.10.2023, Abdul Baser had lodged an FIR before police stating that the present petitioner Malek Uddin has married a girl below 18 years of age. Police registered the case being South Salmara P.S. Case No.294/2023 under Sections 9/10/11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 read with Section 6/17 of the

POCSO Act.

4. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet under Sections 9/10/11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 read with Section 6/17 of the

POCSO Act.

5. Now, Malek Uddin and the said minor girl (now a major) have come together to this Court stating that they are now living happily and do not want Malek Uddin to be

prosecuted further.

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 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 polic