SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Gau) 289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
HITESH KUMAR SARMA, J.
ADESH KUMAR JAIN - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 413 of 2017
Decided On : 12-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Bhattacharya.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.J. Dutta, ld. Additional Public Prosecutor.

The importance of complying with the provisions of Section 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and the need for a reasoned order by the Magistrate in cases filed under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - IPC 376, CrPC 156 - Summary: The court quashed the FIR filed under Section 376 of the IPC, as the complainant did not comply with the provisions of Section 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and the order of the learned Magistrate was not reasoned. The court emphasized the need for prior application under Sections 154 (1) and 154 (3) while filing a petition under Section 156 (3) and highlighted the importance of a reasoned order by the Magistrate. The court also considered the delay in lodging the complaint and the veracity of the complainant's version before quashing the FIR.

Fact of the Case:

The accused-petitioner was alleged to have committed rape on the informant/respondent. The informant alleged that the accused-petitioner developed intimacy with her, promised to marry her, and had physical relations with her. She filed a complaint seeking direction to register the case and investigate, but the accused-petitioner argued that no offence under Section 376 of the IPC was made out from the complaint.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant did not comply with the provisions of Section 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and the order of the learned Magistrate was not reasoned. It also considered the delay in lodging the complaint and the veracity of the complainant's version before quashing the FIR.

Issues: Non-compliance with Section 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C., lack of reasoned order by the Magistrate, and delay in lodging the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for prior application under Sections 154 (1) and 154 (3) while filing a petition under Section 156 (3) and highlighted the importance of a reasoned order by the Magistrate. It also considered the delay in lodging the complaint and the veracity of the complainant's version before quashing the FIR.

Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR in the All Women Police Station, Panbazar, Guwahati, Case No. 134/2014.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

1. This is an application, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, praying for setting aside and quashing the FIR in All Women Police Station Case No. 134/2014, under Section 376 of the IPC, arising out of CR Case No. 3379C/2014, filed under Section 156 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. I have heard Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing the State respondent No. 1. None appeared for the respondent No. 2/informant.

3. As both the parties are heard at length at the admission stage itself, in accordance with the order, dated 23-01-2018, this Court proposes to dispose of this matter by this judgment.

4. The fact leading to the registration of the All Women Police Station case is that, a petition, registered as Case No. 3379C/2014, was filed, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the All Women Police Station, Panbazar, Guwahati, to register the case, investigate into the same and submit a report in full form by the present respondent No. 2.

5. The accusations against the present accused-petitioner in the said complaint is that the informant/respondent No. 2, a widow, while coming from New Jalpaiguri (NJP), in the year 2011, the accused-petitioner met her in the train. During such meeting, the informant/respondent No.2 narrated to him her miserable condition and hearing about her condition, he assured her of his help and he developed intimacy with her. In the month of June, 2011, when the accused-petitioner came to Guwahati, he offered a mobile phone to her telling her that she is like his sister and he would be happy if she accepted the mobile phone telling her further that she could communicate to him any problem without any hesitation. The informant/respondent No. 2 accepted the mobile phone. Thereafter, since the month of July, 2011, the accused-petitioner started to come to her house and his intention was bad. In her house, he used to tell her that life is long and a widow faces much difficulty to lead her life in a society and therefore she should marry him. The accused-petitioner also assured her that he would marry her and give her the status of his wife. The informant/respondent accepted the proposal of the accused-petitioner and she offered herself to him and in the month of July, 2011 itself, the accused-petitioner cohabited with her. Thereafter, on several occasions the accused-petitioner had physical relation in that month itself till the month of May, 2014. She was assured by the accused-petitioner that in the month of August, 2014, he would marry her. Since the month of June, 2014, the accused-petitioner stopped contacting the informant/respondent No. 2 and when she tried to contact him over phone, he did not receive her phone call.

6. Therefore, the informant/respondent alleged commission of rape on her by the accused-petitioner. It has been specifically stated in the complaint, referred to above, that she had approached the All Women Police Station to lodge the FIR, but she was told to approach the Hon’ble Court; therefore, she has filed the complaint, aforesaid, before the learned Court praying for directions, mentioned above.

7. The complaint is supported by an affidavit wherein it has been stated, in paragraph-2, that the statement made in the complaint petition are true to the best of her knowledge and belief.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the contents of the petition as well as the grounds for quashment taken therein, submitted that, prima facie, no offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC is made out from the FIR/complaint and that the informant/respondent No. 2 has never averred in her complaint before the Court, seeking the direction, as above, that after refusal by the All Women Police Station, Panbazar, Guwahati, she approached the Superintendent of Police, Guwahati city, under Section 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. which is a sine quo non for t



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top