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

2020 Supreme(Gau) 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Manish Choudhury, J.
Jahida Tabasuna and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Assam and Ors. - Respondent
Crl. Pet. 61 of 2018
Decided On : 10-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :F. Khan, Advocate
For the Respondents:PP and M.U. Mahmud, Advocate

The court emphasized the application of inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint if the allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or manifestly attended with mala fide or malicious intent.

Headnote:

Counter Blast - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 379/406/427/120B - Summary: The court discussed the allegations made in the complaint, the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C., and the application of legal principles from the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case. The court found that the complaint was a counter blast to prior proceedings and was instituted with an intention to cause harassment, leading to the quashing of the complaint and consequential proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The complaint case was filed against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 379/406/427/120B, Indian Penal Code, in relation to an incident at the complainant's house. The petitioners claimed the allegations were false and a counter blast to prior proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complaint was instituted as a counter blast to prior proceedings and with an intention to cause harassment, leading to the quashing of the complaint and consequential proceedings.

Issues: The issues involved the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C., and the veracity of the allegations in the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle from the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case, where it was observed that the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash a complaint if the uncontroverted allegations and evidence do not disclose the commission of any offence and the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or malicious intent.

Final Decision: The complaint and consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

1. Heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam for respondent no. 1 and Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2-complainant.

2. By this petition preferred under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.", in short), the petitioners have prayed for setting aside and quashing of the complaint case, C.R. Case No. 929/2017, presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Morigaon, Assam (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court, for easy reference).

3. The respondent no. 2-complainant has instituted the complaint case, C.R. No. 929/2017, on 03.10.2017, before the learned trial Court against the 5 (five) petitioners as accused, who all are residents of Rajpur, Police Station - Gobindaganj, District - West Champaran, Bihar alleging, inter-alia, commission of offences under Sections 379/406/427/120B, Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred at 03-00 p.m. on 02.12.2016 at the house of the complainant.

4. The gist of the allegations in the complaint are that the petitioner no. 1 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant and the wife of Md. Nesar Ansari, listed as witness no. 1 in the complaint. The marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and Md. Nesar Ansari was solemnized socially about 14 months ago as per Islamic rituals. A number of jewelleries and an amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- were presented at the time of marriage ritual. After the marriage, the couple were living peacefully for the initial few months. Md. Nesar Ansari had taken his wife i.e. the petitioner no. 1 a number of times to her paternal house in Bihar and the other 4 (four) accused persons i.e. the petitioner nos. 2 to 4, who are the parents and the brothers of the petitioner no. 1 used to ask Md. Nesar Ansari to stay with them by deserting his family. The petitioner no. 1 had treated her husband with cruelty on provocation of her family members as her husband did not agree with their proposal.

It is alleged that on 02.12.2016, the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 came to the house of the complainant located at Ward No. 3, Morigaon suddenly and on such arrival, the complainant and Md. Nesar Ansari after asking the guests to take rest, went to their business place as they have a clothe shop. As the wife of the complainant, listed witness no. 2 in the complaint, was preparing lunch in the kitchen for the guests, the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 decamped from the house by taking advantage of absence of other family members after stealing an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, some valuable clothes worth Rs. 1,10,000/- and some gold jewelleries kept inside the almirah. When the wife of the complainant after preparing lunch, called the daughter-in-law i.e. the petitioner no. 1 she did not get any response. When the wife of the complainant found that nobody was there, she informed the complainant and Md. Nesar Ansari immediately over phone. The complainant and Md. Nesar Ansari thereafter, tried to call the petitioner no. 1 and her father i.e. the petitioner no. 2 but they did not pick up the phones. Later on, their mobile phones were found switched off.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the complaint case is a counter blast to two proceedings instituted by the petitioner no. 1 at prior points of time - (1) Complaint Case being C.R. Case No. 110/2017 instituted in the learned Family Court, Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar; and (2) Complaint Case being C.R. Case No. 627/2017 instituted in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar. The allegations made in the complaint are all false and concocted as the petitioners had never been to Morigaon as the petitioner no. 1 and her husband were residing at Siswa Khada, Bihar after their Marriage. The complaint was filed on 03.10.2017 alleging occurrence of the alleged of

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top