Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Alhaj Dr. Md. Meraj Alam S/o Alhaj Md. Najmuddin – Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Rehena Begum D/o Muslim Ali – Respondent
Crl. Petiton No. 395 of 2017
Decided On : 15-06-2018
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 – Indian Penal Code – Section 420/406/423/468/34 - Challenging the impugned – Divorce – FAMILY - It is case of petitioner that he was married to respondent as per ritual and custom but after marriage petitioner came to know that respondent was earlier married with and said marriage was not dissolved and she has entered into marriage with petitioner by suppressing her earlier marriage – Held, Inherent power of Court in dealing with an extraordinary situation is in larger interest of administration of justice and for preventing manifest injustice being done - Thus it is a judicial obligation on the Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice and to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process - It may be so necessary to curb menace of criminal prosecution as an instrument of operation of needless harassment - A person cannot be permitted to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly – Petition dismissed
Key Points: - The inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, including quashing ongoing proceedings in appropriate circumstances (!) (!) . - The court may quash a criminal proceeding where continuing would constitute harassment, abuse of process, or where false/fabricated evidence and ulterior motives are evident, especially in matrimonial disputes with prior related cases (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The decision discusses the distinction between 482 CrPC inherent powers and revisional jurisdiction (Sec. 397 CrPC), highlighting that 482 has a wider scope to prevent abuse and safeguard justice, and may quash cognizance in appropriate cases (!) (!) (!) . - The court references Bhajan Lal categories as illustrative grounds for exercising inherent power to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice (!) (!) (!) . - The specific case culminates in quashing CR Case No. 717/2016 due to abuse of process and lack of bonafide, considering background of ongoing litigation and alleged forged documents (!) . - The court emphasizes that continued criminal proceedings in the given background would amount to manifest injustice and harassment (!) (!) .
1. The present application has been preferred by the accused petitioner under section 482 CrPC challenging the impugned order of taking cognizance dated 02.01.2017 and the entire proceeding pertaining to CR Case No. 717/2016 now pending in the Court of JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.
2. Heard Ld. counsel for Mr. G.N Sahawalla for the petitioner and the learned counsel Mr. K. N. Chaudhury for the respondent.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was married to the respondent on 11.01.1996 as per ritual, and custom but after the marriage the petitioner came to know that the respondent was earlier married with one Saukat Ali on 11.6.1987 and the said marriage was not dissolved and she has entered into the marriage with the petitioner by suppressing her earlier marriage. On being asked, the respondent stoutly denied the same. The respondent as well as her family members pressurized the petitioner to stay in their house as Gharjowai and the revealment of the fact, the relation became bitter and the family members even used to assault the petitioner for which the petitioner lodged an FIR which got registered at Dispur PS Case No. 172/1997 and also subsequently file divorce case before Family Court vide FC (c) 1998 which was however withdrawn on amicable settlement. The relation between the parties no more remained cordial and in the year 1999 the respondent left the house of the petitioner. Due to such strain relation as well as threat from the family of in-laws, the petitioner decided to terminate the marital relation and approached to Sadar Kazi, Kamrup in the year 2011 where their marriage was solemnized and after sending of notice of Talaq for 3 (three) times, to which the respondent did not respond finally divorce was granted by the Sadar Kazi as on 18.8.2011. After serving of 1st notice of Talaq the respondent and family members assaulted the petitioner in presence of junior doctor and officials and staffs demanding to withdraw the notice of Talaq with a threatening to kill him for which he lodged an FIR before Bhangagarh PS which was registered as Bhangagarh PS Case No. 123/2011 (GR 4679/2011). The petitioner also filed a complaint case No. 2512/2015 alleging bigamy on the part of the respondent. Due to the threatening and demand of money of Rs. 2 crores and other property etc from the petitioner for giving notice of divorce, by the family members of the respondent, the petitioner filed Bhangagarh PS Case No. 261/2015 u/s 120(b)/143/387/292/506 IPC.
4. After receipt of notice for Talaq, the respondent began to file different type of cases against the petitioner as mentioned below:
1. FC (c) 545/2011 before the Family Court for declaring the divorce certificate granted by the Kaji as void.
2. All women cases u/s 498-A IPC which was registered as GR Case No. 4393/2011
3. Complaint case No. 124M/2011 u/s 12 of the Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act.
4. FC (Crl.) 67/2013 u/s 125 CrPC seeking maintenance.
5. Bhangagarh PS Case No. 149/2015 u/s 468/471 IPC alleging that the petitioner has forged his PRC.
6. Hatigaon PS Case No. 315/2015 u/s 420/406/423/468/34 IPC alleging that accused petitioner forged the marriage certificate of the respondent and the petitioner.
7. WP(c) No. 1263/2016 alleging that police has not conducted proper investigation in respect of Hatigaon PS Case No. 315/2015.
8. Crl. Pet. No. 179/2016 for quashing the CR Case No. 2512/2015 filed by the petitioner u/s 494/495 IPC.
9. Crl Pet. No. 154/2016 for quashing the Family Court given in Bhangagarh PS case No. 149/2015 u/s 468/471 IPC.
10. Crl. Pet. No. 113/2016 for quashing the Bhangagarh PS Case NO. 161/2015 filed by the petitioner u/s 120(b)/143/387/292(A)/506 IPC.
11. Respondent also keeps filing RTI application in the name of their family members in the health department and medical college hospital seeking details of the petitioner which could be used against petitioner.
12. Lastly, she filed CR Case No. 717/2016 u/s 468/471 IPC before the J
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
