Gauhati High Court
Katara Chandu Lal Devaji @ Sri Chandu Lal vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 5 May, 2026
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010131702023
2026:GAU-AS:6119
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./586/2023
KATARA CHANDU LAL DEVAJI @ SRI CHANDU LAL
S/O LATE DEVAJI NANJI KATARA
R/O NAVAGAM, DHANELA
P.S. VIJAY NAGAR,
DIST. SABARKANTHA, GUJURAT.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM
2:SMT. BHAVNA GARG
W/O SIDHARTHA
SR DPO
LUMDING
R/O P-106A
OFFICER COLONY
LUMDING
P.S. LUMDING
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-78244
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MR. A M KHAN,MR. A HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. D GOGOI, Amicus Curiae for R-2
Page No.# 2/8
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 05.05.2026
1. Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.
Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S.
Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. D.
Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2.
2. By way of this Criminal Petition under Section 482 read with Sections 397
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks setting
aside and quashing of PRC Case No. 2141/2022, pending before the Court of
the Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 9, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, arising out of
the impugned Charge-Sheet No. 14/2022 dated 30.04.2022, corresponding to
Guwahati GRPS P.S. Case No. 57/2022 under Section 354 IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR
on 24.04.2022 alleging, inter alia, that on the said date, while she was
travelling from Lumding to Guwahati by Rajdhani Express, the petitioner
attempted to pull down her lower garments and was caught red-handed
while allegedly sexually harassing her and outraging her modesty. On the
basis of the said FIR, Guwahati GRPS Case No. 57/2022 under Section 354
IPC was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly
apprehended on 24.04.2022 in connection with the said case and was
subsequently released on bail by this Court on 19.05.2022 in BA No.
982/2022.
4. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
Page No.# 3/8
Charge-Sheet No. 14/2022 dated 30.04.2022 against the petitioner under
Section 354 IPC.
5. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that
the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and baseless, and that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the said case. He
further submits that respondent No. 2, after lodging the FIR, did not participate
in the investigation and, in fact, did not appear to give her statement under
Section 164 CrPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is further contended
that, in the absence of participation by the complainant, the complaint ought to
be set aside and quashed. He also submits that due to an altercation between
the petitioner and respondent No. 2 regarding the seating arrangement in the
train on the date of occurrence, the present criminal case has been falsely
instituted against the petitioner.
6. Per contra, Mr. S. H. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits
that a prima facie offence is made out from the averments in the complaint. He
further submits that, upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has
been submitted against the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings ought not
to be interdicted at the threshold, particularly in view of the serious allegations
regarding outraging the modesty of a woman. It is further submitted that
merely because the complainant did not appear to give her statement under
Section 164 CrPC would not, by itself, render the complaint baseless.
7. Similarly, Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that the complaint,
on the face of it, discloses the commission of a criminal offence.
8. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on
Page No.# 4/8
record. The power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing a
complaint pending before the Trial Court is well settled. It is apt at this juncture
to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgment are reproduced herein for ready reference:
“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 suffi-ciently 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 cog-
nizable 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 com-
plaint 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 cog-nizable
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 pru-
Page No.# 5/8
dent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is suffi-cient
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 con-tinuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing effica-cious 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 and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases;
that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court
to act according to its whim or caprice.”
9. In the present case, the complaint reads as under:
” To
The GRP
Sub: FIR against ChanduLal, ASI, BSF.
I BhabanaGarg, W/O: Sr DPO Lumding was travelling in Rajdhani,
one man named ChanduLal who is ASI in BSF BN 171 personnel
no.876441961 touched me in appropriately many illness and tried to
take out my lower once to which I raised alarm and my fellow
passengers details of which I have given to RPF helped me out. I feel
very humiliated.
Kindly impose strictest punishment. After crossing Jagiroad around 5
PM this incident happened and I called RPF and TT.
Chandulal has sexually harassed me while travelling from Lumding to
Ghy by train no-12423, on seat no. 25 coach no A4 (24-04-2022).
Page No.# 6/8
9957553600
Bhawana Garg-9070634945.
Address-P-106A officer colony Lumding
W/O: Sr DPO Lumding, PS Lumding
Dist: Hojai, Assam.
Received and registered vide Ghy GRPS Case No. 57/2022 dated
24/4/22MadanChKalita, SI
Officer In ChargeGuwahati GRPS, Date 24/4/2022″.
10. It appears that the complainant has specifically alleged that the accused
touched her inappropriately at several places and attempted to remove her
lower garments. Upon raising alarm, fellow passengers intervened, the accused
was apprehended, and the complainant felt humiliated. Prima facie, an offence
is made out. It is also evident that the Investigating Officer, upon collecting
prima facie materials against the petitioner, submitted the charge-sheet.
11. In view of the above, quashing of the complaint at this stage is not
justified. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the complainant did
not participate in the investigation is devoid of merit, as she had already given
her statement before the Investigating Officer and lodged the FIR.
12. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the
complainant did not participate in the investigation, particularly by not giving a
statement under Section 164 CrPC, does not persuade this Court to exercise its
inherent jurisdiction. It is trite that the evidentiary value of statements and the
Page No.# 7/8
effect of any alleged non-participation in the investigation are matters to be
examined during trial. It is apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in
State of T.N. v. Thirukkural Perumal, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 449.
“4. M.S.K. Shanmugovol Chettiyar lodged a first information report at
P.S. Tallakulam against the respondents alleging commission of offences
under Sections 147/148/342/323/395/506(ii) and 109 IPC.
Investigation was taken in hand and some evidence was collected by the
investigating agency. The respondent filed a petition under Section 482
CrPC in the High Court and by the impugned order the petition was
allowed and the proceedings emanating from Crime Case No. 246 of
1992 (supra) were quashed. From a bare perusal of the order of the
learned Single Judge it appears that while quashing the proceedings,
reliance has been placed upon some evidence collected by the
investigating agency during the investigation. The approach of the
learned Judge in relying upon such evidence, which is yet to be produced
before the trial court, to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime Case No.
246 of 1992 (supra) was not proper. The power of quashing an FIR and
criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the courts. Indeed,
the High Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out
injustice and quash the first information report and criminal proceedings,
keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this Court in various
judgments (reference in this connection may be made with advantage to
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal‘) but the same has to be done with
circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut
short in a rather casual manner. The court, is not justified in embarking
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint on the basis of the evidence collected
during investigation only while dealing with a petition under Section 482
CrPC seeking the quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings. The
learned Single Judge apparently fell into an error in evaluating the
genuineness and reliability of the allegations made in the FIR on the
Page No.# 8/8basis of the evidence collected during the investigation. The order of the
learned Single Judge cannot, therefore, be sustained. This appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is hereby
set aside.”
13. Hence, non-appearance of the complainant for recording her statement
under Section 164 CrPC cannot, by itself, be a ground for quashing the
complaint.
14. Accordingly, the stay of the criminal proceedings stands vacated.
15. The trial of the case shall proceed in accordance with law.
16. With the aforesaid direction, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
