Point of Law : Quash of Criminal proceedings - Power under section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. This Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner, namely, Dr. Brijesh Kumar Rai, for quashing the F.I.R. No. 105/2019 of North Guwahati Police Station and the Charge-Sheet No. 50/2019 filed by the North Guwahati Police Station in criminal proceeding of PRC Case No. 367/2019, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:

“The petitioner is serving as Assistant Professor at IIT, Guwahati. In the year 2015, the petitioner had brought to light the irregular manner in which M. Tech Programme of one Mr. Neeraj Kumar was being conducted by his Supervisor-Dr. Gaurav Trivedi, the respondent No. 2 herein, in contravention of M. Tech Ordinances of IIT, Guwahati. Consequent upon the said irregular case being pointed out by the petitioner, studentship of Mr. Neeraj Kumar was terminated. The role of respondent No. 2, which raised serious question about his integrity, was ignored and no action was taken against him and since then the respondent No. 2 was vindictive towards the petitioner. In the late 2018, the petitioner had informed the authorities of IIT, Guwahati that the respondent No. 2 was trying to implicate him and to force him to commit some mistake. Then on 26.07.2019, the respondent No. 2 interrupted a lecture being delivered by the petitioner and repeated the same on 02.08.2018. When the petitioner asked the respondent No. 2 to desist from interpreting his lecture, then some argument took place between him and the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 provoked the petitioner by passing comments on the age of the petitioner’s wife and, subsequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Director of IIT, Guwahati and, thereafter, the respondent No. 2 also lodged a complaint with the Director of IIT, Guwahati against the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 also lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner even though he was the actual culprit. The respondent No. 2 is a dishonest person with questionable morality and victimized the petitioner for pointing out the irregularities committed by the respondent No. 2 and he harassed the petitioner by abusing the process of law and, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court praying for quashing the F.I.R. No. 105/2019 of North Guwahati police Station and the subsequent Charge-Sheet No. 50/2019 in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. and also the criminal proceeding of PRC Case No. 367/2019, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon.”

3. The respondent No. 2 also filed objection to the petition filed by the petitioner, wherein, he has denied each and every averments made by the petitioner in his petition. It is stated that the petitioner is a very arrogant and rogue kind of person and in a incident that took place on 23.09.2017, the petitioner assaulted an Assistant Professor of IIT, Guwahati, Dr. B. Anand, and a criminal proceeding, being North Guwahati P.S. Case No. 88/2017, under Sections 341/294/325/506 IPC, is pending against him and the Charge-Sheet has been filed and now the proceeding is pending for trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (R). And in connection with the said case, disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner, which culminated in imposing of major punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner, vide Order dated 01.01.2020 and as such, he is not now in service of IIT, Guwahati. It is also stated that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner with mala-fide intention to mislead this Court for setting aside the duly instituted criminal proceeding against him and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. B. Chakravorty, learne