Allowed¶41

Mirajul Sheikh and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC8 Dec 2025Crl.Pet./833/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, Rajesh Mazumdar J., order dated 09.12.2025 in Crl.Pet./833/2025 (Mirajul Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Assam & Anr.) — quashing under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 of child-marriage (PCM Act, Ss.9 & 10) and POCSO (Ss.6 & 17) proceedings in Special (P) Case No. 245/2024, Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar; FIR by VDP Secretary; victim turned major and cohabiting with petitioner No. 1 with a child born 05.01.2023; Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) categories applied; no possibility of conviction; abuse of process; pre-arrest bail noted.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the proceedings of Special (P) Case No. 245/2024, arising out of Mankachar PS Case No. 27/2023, against the petitioners; criminal petition disposed of. ¶41

Mirajul Sheikh and Anr. Vs the State of Assam… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing and setting aside of the proceedings of Special (P) Case No. 245/2024, arising out of Mankachar PS Case No. 27/2023, against the petitioners; criminal petition disposed of.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Special (P) Case No. 245/2024 under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and the POCSO Act, 2012 against the petitioners are liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023; therefore, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Applying the ratio in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, since the alleged victim has come forward to state that she has been living happily with her husband and is now a major, there is no possibility of conviction of anybody in future; allowing such a criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

¶39

Key takeaways

The proceedings of Special (P) Case No.245/2024, arising out of Mankachar PS Case No. 27/2023, against the present petitioners are quashed and set aside.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of proceedings in Special (P) Case No. 245/2024 under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (PCM) Act, 2006 read with Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar, arising out of charge sheet No. 95/2023 dated 30.06.2023 in Mankachar/Sukchar PS Case No. 27/2023 — FIR lodged on 02.02.2023 by the Secretary of the Village Defence Party alleging that petitioner No. 1 had married a girl below the permissible age of marriage — marriage of 2022; a male child born to the couple on 05.01.2023; petitioners on pre-arrest bail and never absconded — alleged victim (respondent No. 2), stated to have been born on 08.10.2004, is now a major and has submitted that she is living happily with petitioner No. 1 and that continuance of the proceedings would be detrimental to their future life — relying on the categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Court held that with the victim now a major and living happily with her husband there is no possibility of conviction of anybody in future, and continuance of the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court — criminal petition allowed; proceedings quashed and set aside.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010151512025

2025:GAU-AS:16998

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./833/2025

¶6

MIRAJUL SHEIKH AND ANR SON OF BISIRUL HOQUE R/O VILL- CHAR KHALISAMARI P.S. SUKCHR, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783128.

¶7

2: BASIRUL HOQUE @ BASIRUL SHEIKH R/O VILL- CHAR KHALISAMARI P.S. SUKCHR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-783128

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP.BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM

¶10

2:ASMITARH BEGUM W/O MIRAJUL SHEIKH VILL- CHAR KHALISAMARI P.S. SUKCHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-783128

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM, MS A KHATUN

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A.K. HAJONG (R-2),MR. I CHAKMA (R-2),MR. S. K. CHAKMA (R-2),MS. N DEKA (R-2),MS. D GHOSH (R-2)

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER

¶16

09.12.2025

¶17

Heard Mr M Islam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard K K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam; and Mr N Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

¶18

The instant criminal petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, with the prayer for setting aside and quashing of the proceedings of Special (P) Case No. 245/2024, under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (PCM) Act, 2006, read with Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the petitioner and the said case is pending before the learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar. The said special case has been registered pursuant to the charge sheet No. 95/2023, dated 30.06.2023, arising out of Mankachar PS Case No. 27/2023.

¶19

The brief facts of the case is that on 02.02.2023, the complainant, Md Kutub Uddin, the Secretary of VDP (Village Defence Party) Char Kholishamari Village had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Sukchar Police Station (in short, P.S.), stating that the accused/petitioner No. 1, Mirajul Sheikh had married a young girl, who is below the permissible age of marriage. The said FIR was received and registered on 02.02.2023 as Sukchar PS Case No. 27/2023, under Sections 9/10/11 of the PM At, 2006, read with Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The said case was also registered as GR No. 149/2023.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is the son of the petitioner No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of marriage, the alleged victim was a minor, aged about 17 years 04 months and 02 days as she was born on 08.10.2004. Now, the alleged victim is major, aged about 20 years 09 months and 06 days as on 14.07.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

petitioner No. 1 and his wife, i.e., the alleged victim are enjoying happy married lives sine the day of their marriage. In the meantime, the petitioner No. 1 and his wife were blessed with a baby (male child) on 05.01.2023. The petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail and they never absconded.

¶23

Both Mirajul Sheikh and Basirul Hoque @ Basirul Sheikh, have approached this Court together stating that the marriage of the minor girl was held in the year 2022. Petitioner No. 1 and the victim (respondent No. 2) are blessed with a child and till now they are living happily.

¶24

The said minor girl is now more than 18 years of age and she has submitted that since they are living happily together, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner No. 1, Mirajul Sheikh, would be detrimental to their future life.

¶25

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

¶26

The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 . Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under:

¶27

“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.

¶28

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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 Code.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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 grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶36

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶39

This Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), is applicable in the present case. Since the so-called victim girl has come forward to state that she has been living happily with her husband and she is now a major, in such a circumstance, there is no possibility of conviction of anybody in future. Thus, allowing such a criminal proceeding to continue before a trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

¶40

This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶41

Accordingly, the proceedings of Special (P) Case No.245/2024, arising out of Mankachar PS Case No. 27/2023, against the present petitioners, is quashed and set aside.

¶42

The Criminal Petition accordingly, disposed of.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Mirajul Sheikh and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mirajul Sheikh and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti Arifa Khatun Alias Sultana Vs the State of Assam

Maniraj Singha Vs Manmohan Singha

Jaynal Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Kumud Boro and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

MD Rahim Ali Vs the State of Assam

Alongbar Narzary Vs the State of Assam and Anr.