AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(A.M. Kalita, J)
Heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Assam and Ms. L. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2.
The instant criminal petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, assailing the order dated 27.10.2025, passed in PRC Case No. 2833/2024 by the learned Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) at Kamrup. By filing the instant criminal petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the whole proceeding in PRC Case No. 2833/2024 pending before the aforesaid court, which was registered against the accused petitioners for offences under Section 506/34 of Indian Penal Code.
The case in brief is that on 23.02.2024, the opposite party No. 2, namely, Smt. Diya Chhetri, had filed a complaint case, being numbered as CR Case No. 170/2024, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, alleging, inter alia that the opposite party No. 2, Smt. Diya Chhetri, got acquainted with Nitesh Soni, accused petitioner no.1, the son of accused petitioner No. 2, Dinesh Soni, through a social media platform, namely, Instagram; that on 02.02.2023, the aforesaid Nitesh Soni, who is the petitioner No. 1 in the instant case, had performed a marriage ceremony with the opposite party No. 2, Smt. Diya Chhetri and thereafter, they involved in a physical relationship; that however, later on, opposite party No. 2, Smt. Diya Chhetri, came to realize that the aforesaid Nitesh Soni had not attained the age of marriage at the time of the alleged marriage and therefore, she requested Nitesh Soni to execute an agreement of marriage with a promise that as soon as Nitesh Soni attains the age of marriage, Nitesh Soni will marry the opposite party No. 2; that on 11.01.2024, the opposite party No. 2, Smt. Diya Chhetri, had issued a legal notice to Nitesh Soni requesting Nitesh Soni to execute an agreement for marriage. However, the same was not responded by the accused petitioners; that after receipt of the legal notice, the accused petitioners as well as the others started threatening the opposite party No. 2 with dire consequences.
On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the learned Court of CJM, Kamrup (Metro), vide order dated 26.04.2024, directed the Officer-in-Charge of Basistha Police Station to register the CR Case No. 170(C)/2024 as a First Information Report and also directed to conduct investigation into the matter and accordingly to submit the final report of the investigation.
Upon receipt of the aforesaid order, the Officer-in-Charge, Basistha Police Station registered Basistha Police Station Case No. 306/2024, under Section 120-B/493/354-B/506/507 of Indian Penal Code.
The Basistha Police, after investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused petitioners in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) under Sections 294/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the PRC No. 2833/2024 has been registered under Sections 294/506/34 IPC. Thereafter, the statement under Section 164 CrPC of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded on 04.05.2024 before the JMFC, Kamrup (Metro).
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), thereafter, finding prima facie case against the accused petitioners in connection with PRC Case No. 2833/2024, under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, framed charges wherein the charges were explained to the accused petitioners who pleaded not guilty. However, vide order dated 27.10.2025, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), issued process and fixed the matter for evidence on 06.01.2024. The accused petitioners, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.10.2025 passed in PRC No. 2833/2024, has, therefore, approached this Court for quashing of the whole proceeding on the primary ground that the offences under Sections 506 and 34 of the IPC have not been made out in the instant case.
Ms. A. Gayan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the charge-sheet as well as the complaint do not prima facie make out the ingredients of offence under Sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the proceedings before the learned CJM, Kamrup (Metro), should be set aside and quashed on that ground alone. Since no case or an offence under Sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused petitioners, the trial proceeding under the aforesaid sections of law would amount to abuse of process of the court and hence, the impugned criminal proceedings against the accused petitioners are liable to be set aside and quashed. She further submits that Section 506 of Indian Penal Code punishes the offence of criminal intimidation, which involves threatening another person with injury to their reputation, property, or person, to cause them to do something they are not legally bound to do or omit something they are legally bound to do. She submits that in the instant case, no ingredients of any criminal intimidation could be found from either the complaint or the charge-sheet that has been filed by the police after due investigation. She submits that Section 34 is also not applicable in the instant case, since there is no criminal act under the Indian Penal Code has been committed by the accused petitioners jointly. The essential component under this section is the criminal act which is not at all available in the instant case. As such, she submits that the proceeding before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), cannot be sustained and if the same is allowed to go, the same shall be an abuse to the process of judicial proceeding.
Ms. A. Gayan, learned counsel for the accused petitioners, in support of her submission that in the instant case, there are no ingredients of Section 506 read with Section 34 made out from the complaint and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to set aside and quash the proceedings of PRC Case No. 2833/2024, has relied on the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947.
On the other hand, Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. PP, submits that though there are certain allegations against the petitioner No. 1 having sexual relationship with the opposite party No. 2 after the so-called marriage and thereafter, he went off without getting married, it is seen in the instant case that the marriage has not been proved and it is an admitted fact that the accused petitioner No. 1 was a minor at the time of the aforesaid so-called marriage. Ms. Bora has fairly submitted that the ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation cannot be found in the complaint involved in the instant case.
Ms. L. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae, has also fairly submitted that ingredients of criminal intimidation are not found in either the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 or the charge-sheet filed by the police after the investigation.
Trial court record in the instant case has been received and the same is perused. This Court has also considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties.
It is seen from the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) that the opposite party No. 2 and the accused-petitioner No. 1 were in a love relationship, and on 02.02.2023, the accused-petitioner No. 1 had invited the opposite party No. 2 to a room in Hotel Central Inn, situated at Ganeshguri, for celebrating his birthday party. However, later on, it was found out that there was no birthday party, but in front of some of his friends, the accused-petitioner No. 1 had organized some rituals and performed marriage with the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, they had physical relationship in between them. It is also seen that there is an allegation that the aforesaid marriage was known to the parents and family members of accused-petitioner No. 1 and they agreed to welcome the opposite party No. 2 to their house. However, when the opposite party No. 2 realized that the accused-petitioner No. 1 was a minor, she insisted that accused-petitioner No. 1 should sign an agreement wherein he should agree to marry the opposite party No. 2 after attaining majority. It is also seen that after a certain point of time, the accused-petitioner No. 1, who was a student at that point of time of Class 12, after clearing his 12th exam, took admission outside Guwahati and at present, he is pursuing a course in Hotel Management in the Institute of Hotel Management Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition, Banipark, Sikar Road, in Jaipur. It is also seen that the opposite party No. 2 tried to contact the accused-petitioner No. 1 and tried to bring him back. However, her efforts failed. Thereafter, she went to the house of the accused-petitioner No. 1 and met the other accused persons; however, they refused to recognize any kind of relationship between the accused-petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2. It is seen that faced with the aforesaid situation, the opposite party No. 2 had issued a legal notice also to the accused-petitioner No. 1, which was not responded to by the accused-petitioner No. 1.
From the charge-sheet dated 31.08.2024 filed by the police after investigation in the matter, it is seen that the investigation did not detail much factual aspects, rather stated that there was a love relationship between the accused-petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 and their relationship had broken off. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner No. 1 tried to go away and break the relationship with the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 went to the residence of the accused-petitioner No. 1, wherein she met the other accused petitioners who did not recognize their relationship. It is stated in the charge-sheet that during investigation, a case under Sections 294/506/34 of IPC has been established against the accused-petitioners.
In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Kamrup (Metro), it is seen that the opposite party No. 2 stated about their stay in Central Inn hotel in Ganeshguri on 02.02.2023 and that they stayed together for 18 months and during that time they were involved in sex. She stated that the accused-petitioner No. 1 used to beat her during that period and suddenly he went missing and she could not contact him. It is stated that his act of leaving her hurt her and since he deserted her, she approached the police.
From the above, it is seen that the accused-petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2, in fact, had a relationship and therein, they were involved in physical relationship also. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner No. 1 has broken off his relationship with the opposite party No. 2, who was a major at that point of time. It is also seen that the accused-petitioner No. 1, in order to pursue his studies, has gone out of Guwahati and presently studying in a course of Hotel Management in an institute located outside Guwahati, i.e., in Jaipur. It is also seen that the involvement of the other accused petitioners is not alleged much except of the fact that they failed to recognize the relationship of the opposite party No. 2 with the accused-petitioner no. 1.
Now, coming to Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes the punishment for criminal intimidation, it is pertinent to note that the offence has been defined under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant provision is extracted hereinbelow:
“503.Criminal intimidation. —Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation. —A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person, in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.”
From the above section, it is seen that the necessary and most important ingredient of criminal intimidation is that there should be a threat of injury to the person, reputation, or property is required. It is due to this threat of injury to person, reputation, or property, someone is pressurized to act in a manner otherwise he would not have acted. However, taking into account the facts involved in the instant case, it is not seen that there was any threat of any injury to the person, reputation, or property of the opposite party No. 2 by any of the accused-petitioners. Though there was a physical relationship between the accused-petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2, which is apparently consensual in nature, maybe due to the so-called marriage or due to certain other aspects, but that certainly is not due to any threat by the accused-petitioners.
On a perusal of the whole complaint as well as the charge-sheet, this Court does not find any ingredients of the offence of any criminal intimidation on the part of the accused-petitioners.
As far as Section 34 is concerned, since this Court has come to a finding that there is no criminal intimidation, therefore, there is no criminal act which has been committed by several persons in furtherance of common intention. This is due to the fact that the complaint as well as the charge-sheet does not reveal any kind of offence under criminal intimidation committed by the accused-petitioners in the instant case. Therefore, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the instant case.
Having found the aforesaid, this Court now examines the jurisdiction of the Court to quash any such proceedings which may be termed as abuse of the process of the Court under the provisions of 528 of BNSS, 2023.
The jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many landmark cases. One such landmark case is the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein at paragraph 102, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles which are required to be followed by a High Court while dealing with a case under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 of Cr.P.C.).
The aforesaid paragraph 102 being relevant to the instant case is extracted herein below: -
"102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XV 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 have given 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 channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula 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 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 grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private or personal grudge."
From the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is seen that if from a bare perusal of a complaint or an FIR, even if the allegations are taken on face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, in those kinds of cases, if the proceeding is allowed to go on, the same can be an abuse of the process of the court and in those cases, it will be correct for the High Court to quash and set aside such proceedings.
In the instant case also, it is seen that though there are certain allegations against the accused petitioners by the opposite party No. 2, the offenses under Sections 506 and 34 of IPC cannot be made out against the accused petitioners. Therefore, having found that there is no ingredient of Section 506 read with 34 could be made out against the accused applicants from the complaint or the charge-sheet, the order passed by the learned CJM dated 27.10.2025, whereby charges have been framed against the accused petitioners under Sections 506/34, cannot be allowed to be sustained.
This Court has also considered the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), wherein at paragraph 20, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: -
"20.The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:
(i)Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii)Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
(iii)Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv)Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom), especially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. (See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)."
From the above also, it is seen that when there is sufficient material brought before the court by way of submission and pleading that the accusations made by a person cannot be legally sustained due to the fact that the same do not constitute any offence, then in that circumstances, a criminal proceedings drawn against the accused person should be set aside and quashed as that will definitely save judicial time and energy.
In the instant case also, from the reading of the complaint and charge-sheet, no offence could be seen to have been committed under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, such proceeding, if allowed to go on, the same will cause unnecessary hardship to the accused petitioners as well as waste precious judicial time and the same obviously could be termed as the abuse of the process of the court.
Taking into view the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts involved in the instant case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 27.10.2025 passed in PRC No. 2833/2024, along with the whole proceeding of PRC No. 2833/2024 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), should be set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings under PRC Case No. 2833/2024 are hereby set aside and quashed.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant criminal petition is allowed and disposed of.