Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Apurba Kr Choudhury Son Of Late Surya Kr. Choudhury And Ors – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr Rep. By The PP, Assam – Respondent
Crl.Pet. 352 of 2022
Decided on : 06-05-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120(B)/420/409/467/468/471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7/7(A)/12 – Criminal Conspiracy - Prayer for quashing FIR - Forgery of valuable security, will, etc - Forgery for purpose of cheating - Principal grounds of challenge are that the FIR does not prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offence and no specific complaint has been made against the petitioners - The remedies available in law for false and vexatious charges have also been highlighted in the said judgment to dissuade the High Courts from exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC (Para 19).
Findings of the Court :
Court is of the opinion that the said observation was made on a prima facie consideration on the prayer made in the said petition and only by which the matter was directed to be listed for motion again - Further, as disclosed by the petitioners themselves in paragraph 6 of the petition that the said criminal petition was closed vide order, aforesaid observation has otherwise also become otiose - Similarly, the observations made in the bail petitions are to be read along with the observations made that the same was not to be treated as a precedent - In any case, the observations made in the bail applications were admittedly on prima facie satisfaction - Further, the same was made within nine days from the date of arrest of the petitioners and lodging of the FIR when the investigation had just commenced and materials were yet to be fully gathered upon investigation - In the opinion of this Court, it would not be prudent at all to be guided by the observations made on the basis of the materials which were within nine days from the date of lodging of the FIR and as on today the investigation has proceeded a lot.
Result – Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
The extraordinary powers conferred to this Court by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called CrPC), has been sought to be invoked by this petition jointly filed by 14 nos. of petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR dated 20.09.2021 registered as Patacharkuchi Police Station Case No. 479/2021 under Sections 120(B)/420/409/467/468/471 of the IPC read with Sections 7/7(A)/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The principal grounds of challenge are that the FIR does not prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offence and no specific complaint has been made against the petitioners. Support has also been drawn from an order dated 24.09.2021 of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 522/2021 that acting as land broker does not prima facie constitute any offence.
2. To appreciate the issue, it is necessary to have the facts of the case in brief.
3. The petitioners are businessmen and though there is a statement in paragraph 2 of the petition that the "petitioner no. 15" is a Government Employee, there is no such petitioner no. 15 in the array of the parties. Nonetheless, the present petition has been filed in respect of an FIR dated 20.09.2021 registered as Patacharkuchi Police Station Case No. 479/2021 under Sections 120(B)/420/409/467/468/471 of the IPC read with Sections 7/7(A)/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the Deputy Commissioner, Bajali had issued a communication dated 20.09.2021 to the Superintendent of Police, Bajali alleging interalia that the petitioners are involved in land dealings in the Bajali districts. The aforesaid communication was forwarded to the Patacharkuchi PS leading to the registration of the present case. The petitioners were arrested on 20.09.2021 and the learned Special Judge, Assam vide order dated 22.09.2021 had forwarded some of the petitioners for seven days police custody.
5. The said order dated 22.09.2021 was the subject matter of challenge by some of the petitioners, who have preferred a criminal petitions before this Court including Criminal Petition No. 522/2021. It is the case of the petitioners that while calling for the Case Diary vide order dated 24.09.2021, an observation was made that though the case has been registered under the said provisions of Law, the FIR and the other materials on record do not prima facie disclose any ingredients of the offence. This Court had further observed that land broking, as such cannot constitute an offence under the IPC or PC Act unless the same is associated with some activities of criminal nature. In the meantime, the petitioners had also filed bail applications in this Court and accordingly the criminal petition was closed vide order dated 27.09.2021.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the bail applications were allowed by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2021. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR on certain grounds pleaded in the petition.
7. I have heard Shri J. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. SH Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
8. Shri Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a plain reading of the FIR does not constitute any offence under the various sections of law under which it is registered. He submits that there is no specific description as to how each of the petitioners are connected with the offence and simply an annexure has been appended to the communication dated 20.09.2021 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bajali wherein the names of the petitioners and few others have been given.
9. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 24.09.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 522/2021 which was primarily filed against the order dated 22.09.2021 whereby the petitioners were remanded to seven days police custody. This Court after hearing the parties had directed listing of this petition again on
Point of Law : The remedies available in law for false and vexatious charges have also been highlighted in the said judgment to dissuade the High Courts from exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent abuse of process of any Court and to secure ends of justice.
High Courts may quash FIRs under Section 482 CrPC only in exceptional circumstances, with a prima facie case against accused warranting investigation.
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs are exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, necessitating sufficient grounds warranting quashing.
The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, and only when justified by the tests laid down in the section itself. Q....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be sparingly used and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of....
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
