Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manish Choudhury, J.
Anima Borah And & Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam And Anr. - Respondents
Crl.Pet. 949 of 2018
Decided On : 19-06-2020
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Chakravorty
For the Respondent: Pp, Assam
The court highlighted the wide amplitude of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, CrPC and the Magistrate's discretion to discharge the accused in a warrant case.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Criminal Petition - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Article 227 - Sections 420/494/406/427/506/34, IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions of Sections 420, 494, 406, 427, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and their implications on the case. The court emphasized the procedure to be followed in a warrant case and the Magistrate's discretion to discharge the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioners abetted the illegal acts of a woman who had multiple marriages and threatened the respondent's family members. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for various offenses under the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' application under Section 482, CrPC was not justified and advised them to seek discharge under Section 239, CrPC before the trial court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners' application for quashing the charge sheet and the order of the trial court was valid under Section 482, CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the inherent power under Section 482, CrPC should be exercised only in exceptional situations and that the truthfulness of the allegations should not be examined at the stage of quashing the charge sheet.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the application, advising the petitioners to approach the trial court for seeking discharge under Section 239, CrPC.
JUDGMENT :
This criminal petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ and/or ‘the CrPC’, for short) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet being Charge Sheet no. 443/2017 dated 05.08.2017 submitted in connection with G.R. Case no. 1275/2016, arising out of Dibrugarh Police Station Case no. 378/2016, and the order taking cognizance dated 15.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dibrugarh (‘the trial court’, for short) in so far as the present petitioners are concerned.
2. A brief narration of the facts which have led the present petitioners to file the instant petition before this Court can be exposited as under :
2.1. The respondent no. 2 as the informant, had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 19.03.2016 before the Superintendent of Police, Majuli stating, inter alia, that he married one Ms. Nirmali Borah, a resident of Santipur, Sivasagar in December, 2014. After the marriage, they started residing in a rented house at Dibrugarh. After few days of the marriage, he came to know that Ms. Nirmali Borah was already legally married to one Sri Jibul Gogoi of Dibrugarh and thereafter, to one Sri Arun Tanti of Tinsukia. It was alleged that Ms. Nirmali Borah got married with Sri Jibul Gogoi in the year 2009 and thereafter, she got married again with Sri Arun Tanti on 12.04.2013. On being informed and provided with court documents by the ex-husbands of the lady, when the informant communicated the matter with the family members of Ms. Nirmali Borah i.e. the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 who are the mother, brother and sister of Ms. Nirmali Borah respectively, came and took all the belongings from the rented house of the informant. It was alleged that the family members of Ms. Nirmali Borah maintained secrecy about her previous marriages and thereby, abetted the illegal acts of Ms. Nirmali Borah. When the informant asked to the family members of Ms. Nirmali Borah about the reasons behind such act of cheating, etc. they threatened the informant with hired goons and also cautioned him of dire consequences. It was further alleged that when the informant came back from Dibrugarh in March, 2016, the present petitioners had threatened his family members with their lives and thereby, caused mental tortures. Further allegation was made to the effect that the petitioners had threatened the father and the brother of the informant also.
2.2. On receipt of the said FIR, the same was forwarded to the Officer In-Charge, Jengraimukh Police Station. The Officer In-Charge, Jengraimukh Police Station treating it as the FIR, registered a case being Jengraimukh Police Station Case no. 13/2016 and investigation was initiated. Thereafter, on the ground of jurisdiction, as permitted by the Court at Majuli, the case was transferred to Dibrugarh Police Station and accordingly, Dibrugarh Police Station Case no. 378/2016 came to be registered on 17.05.2016 for offences under Sections 420/494/406/427/506/34, Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2.3. It transpires from the case record that initially the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) from Jengraimukh Police Station and after the case was transferred to Dibrugarh Police Station, the case was investigated by the I.O. from the Dibrugarh Police Station. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses including that of the informant and also collected materials. After completion of investigation, the I.O. had submitted a charge sheet under Section 173, CrPC being Charge Sheet no. 443/2017 on 05.08.2017. In the said charge sheet, the I.O. had reported that he found sufficient materials to proceed against the charge sheeted accused persons, 4 (four) in number, for the offences punishable under Sections 420/494/406/427/506/34, IPC. The charge sheeted accused persons are (i) Ms. Nirmali Borah (accused no. 1), (ii) Smti Anim
