IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.
Dr. Hemendra Ram Phookun, S/o Lt. Balendra Ram Phookun – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.Pet./407 of 2010
Decided On : 05-08-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 197, 199, 420, 307, 120(B), 34 - Quash criminal proceeding – Offence of Cheating - Criminal conspiracy - Application praying for quashing criminal proceeding – Complaint filed by respondent no.2 against petitioner, is full of mala fide intention. Para 13.
Finding of the Court: Respondent no.2 had lied when she stated that without examining her, petitioner had given certificate - She was taking medicines prescribed by petitioner - Complaint lodged by respondent no.2 is meant to wreck vengeance upon petitioner - It is clear from record that complaint filed by respondent no.2 against present petitioner, is full of mala fide intention - Court is of opinion that allowing criminal proceeding to continue against present petitioner, would be an abuse of process of court - Court finds that this is a fit case for exercising inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the criminal proceeding of All Women P.S. Case No.7/2008 under Sections 197/199/420/307/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The respondent no.2 Smti Parijat Saikia (hereinafter referred to as the respondent no.2) was married to Arijit Saikia. Their marriage was solemnised on 03.03.2003. On 10.03.2004, the couple was blessed with a male child. Within a very short time, the couple fell from cloud nine. Marital disputes like demand of dowry etc. started to appear. Several litigations came into being.
4. The respondent no.2 alleged that her husband conspired to make her a psychiatric patient. The respondent alleged that the present petitioner issued a certificate on 24.12.2007 declaring her to be a psychiatric patient.
5. At this stage, the respondent no.2 states that without examining her, the said certificate was issued by the present petitioner. She, however, states that the medicines prescribed by the present petitioner were of high doses, which might have caused psychological and mental disorder.
6. Therefore, the respondent no.2 went to Dr. Sangeeta Dutta of Down Town Hospital. Dr. Sangeeta Dutta examined her on 28.12.2007, 29.12.2007 and on 07.01.2008 and issued a certificate declaring that the respondent no.2 was not having any psychiatric problems.
7. Narrating the aforesaid facts, the respondent no.2 filed a complaint case against her husband Arjijit Saikia and the petitioner Dr. Hemendra Ram Phukan under Sections 197/199/420/307/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati referred the matter to All Women Police Station for registering a case.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.
10. The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is the inherent power of the High Court for preventing the abuse of the process of the Court. The guidelines for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC are laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. The relevant paragraph is quoted as under:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
Power under Section 482 of CrPC is inherent power of High Court for preventing abuse of process of Court.
Proceedings against relatives in dowry cases must allege specific conduct; general allegations fail to establish a prima facie case.
Vague and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes do not justify criminal proceedings against relatives; specific accusations are necessary to avoid misuse of legal provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of law and ensure the ends of justice.
The court emphasized that quashing proceedings requires compelling reasons, particularly when allegations are vague and unsupported by evidence.
The court held that proceedings under Section 498A IPC were malicious and lacked evidentiary support, justifying quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.