The court emphasized that the material relied upon by the accused should be of sterling and impeccable quality, ruling out the assertions contained in the charges, and not refuted by the prosecution, to justify quashing of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. By way of present petition under section 482 CrPC the three petitioners who has been arrayed as an accused in a complaint case No. 4701C/2009 has sought for passing of the said complaint.

2. According to the petitioners a title Suit No. 183/2009 has been filed by the petitioner No. 3 Smti Lakhpati Devi against one Indu Konwar and Rameshwar Pandey for declaration of right title interest at Chhapra, Bihar and one Joginder Konwer is the son of said Rameshwar Pandey who is residing at Beltola, Guwahati. However, they did not know the complainant Rangnath Mishra, but on enquiry came to know that Rangnath Mishra is working under Joginder Pandey. It is submitted that with a view to weaken the said civil suit and to blackmail the present petitioner Rameshwar Singh projected the complainant to file false criminal case against them. Accordingly, one Rangnath Mishra (who is not known to the petitioner) filed a complainant before the court of CJM, Kamrup alleging inter alia that on 26.12.2009 the accused persons came to his contact and introduced themselves they are coming from Chhapra, Bihar for searching job opportunity of the son of Nivas Pandey and seeing their grievances the complainant allowed them to stay them in his house but on the next morning all the accused petitioners stated to have fled away from the house of the complainant along with valuable articles amounting to Rs. 14,900/- and also committed mischief by breaking some household articles. Accordingly, the complaint Case No. 4701C was registered and cognizance was taken under section 379 IPC and summons was issued to the accused petitioner. Challenging the aforesaid Criminal Proceeding the present petition has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the proceeding as well as cognizance taken by the court.

3. Notice was issued to the respondent and in turn the respondent also entered his appearance by engaging counsel but none appeared before the court at the time of hearing of the case.

4. Heard the submission of Ld. Counsel Mr. Roy for the petitioner who has vehemently submitted that there is no authenticity in the allegation that has been made against the petitioners as there was no any sort of relation or earlier acquaintance between the parties. That being so, there was no occasion to stay in the house of the complainant and to commit theft in the house. It has been stated in the petition the petitioner No. 1 was posted as a storekeeper in Bihar and for ensuing assembly election for the year 2010 the petitioner was posted as a polling officer vide annexure-6 copy of order. The petitioner No. 3 has also filed an FIR against several persons including one Joginder Pandey for which a proceeding under section 107 CrPC is pending at Chhapra and police report vide annexure-7 reflect the complicity of said Joginder Pandey and said Joginder Pandey is the son of Rameshwar Pandey against whom civil litigation is also pending between the parties. The police report vide annexure-7 also reveals the complicity of Joginder and thus it is the case of petitioner that at the behest of said Joginder present complaint case has been filed as a counter blast of title suit No. 183/2009. According to the petitioner they were came to Assam as stated in the complaint petition. The Petitioner No. 1 after retirement from service reside in Bihar and he has two sons who were serving in Tata Steel Ltd. Jameshadpur and another is studying MBA so the question of searching appointment in Assam does not arise. Further, it is submitted that petitioner is drawing salary more than 32,000/- and no prudent person will belief that such a person will come to Guwahati to commit theft of blanket, radio etc. from the house of the complainant. Thus it contend that the present case is filed malafidely on a concoct story and the complaint at the face value does not prima facie constitute any offence and liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Considered the submission of Ld. Counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document