Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
Pallav Tamuly — Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam And Others — Respondent
Crl. Pet. 350 of 2022
Decided on : 29-09-2022
498A - Quashing of FIR - Section 498A of the IPC - [498A] - [Quashing of FIR] - [498A of the IPC]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an officer of the Assam Police, filed a criminal petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR registered against him under section 498A of the IPC by his wife. The FIR alleged incidents of cruelty and torture by the petitioner towards his wife, including an attempt to kill her and their minor son.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the incidents alleged in the FIR, even if taken at face value, prima facie constituted an offence under section 498A of the IPC. The Court also emphasized that it was not permissible to quash an FIR at its nascent stage when there had been no progress in the investigation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the contents of the FIR disclosed commission of a cognizable offence under section 498A of the IPC and whether the FIR could be quashed at the nascent stage of investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that it was not appropriate to examine the veracity of the contents of the FIR and give a determination as to whether the accused could be convicted on the basis of the said FIR at the stage when the investigation was at a nascent stage and not concluded. The Court also emphasized that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
Final Decision: The criminal petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to put forth their submission before the trial Court at the stage of section 239 Cr.P.C. The observations made in the judgment were clarified to be only for the purpose of deciding the criminal petition and would not prejudice the parties during trial or any other stage.
JUDGMENT :
Kalyan Rai Surana, J.
Heard Mr. A.V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bhaskar Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent no. 1 and M r. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. By filing this criminal petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR lodged by respondent no. 2, which is registered as Dispur PS Case No. 671/2022 under section 498A of the IPC.
3. The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 are related as husband and wife. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an officer of the Assam Police and is currently posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Guwahati.
4. The FIR contains long narration of events which allegedly took place on 18.03.2022. It would suffice to mention that as per the FIR, she saw the petitioner's vehicle outside a restaurant and when the informant entered there, she found the petitioner enjoying a chat with a lady and she prepared a video recording. All the three walked out of the restaurant and the respondent no. 2 allegedly sat inside the car of the petitioner, leaving the minor child and the maid behind. The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 then went to the house of the younger brother of the petitioner, and it is alleged that the petitioner refused to pick up their child and maid. On reaching the house of the brother, the respondent no. 2 saw her parents-in-law as well as her brother-in-law behaved badly with her and asked her to go and the petitioner and his brother left in the vehicle, leaving the petitioner stranded on road and therefore, she ran after the vehicle, but the petitioner's brother caught hold of her hand and pushed her, and as a result, she had suffered injury. The respondent no. 2 then called a police officer's wife, who came and picked her up and provided medical treatment and dropped her at her aunt's place. In the meanwhile their minor son with maid and a lady reached there at around midnight at 12.00 hours. As she was ill, the FIR was lodged after two days. The said FIR has been registered as Dispur PS Case No. 671/2022 under section 498A of the IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has read over the contents of the FIR and has submitted that even if the FIR is read as a whole, no case was made out for prosecuting the petitioner under section 498A of the IPC. By referring to the statements made in the instant petition, it has been submitted that since marriage, by her omissions and actions, the respondent no. 2 has caused immense physical and mental pain, agony and other suffering to the petitioner and thus, it is not the respondent no. 2, but the petitioner, who has been suffering cruelty and torture. It has been submitted that the respondent no. 2 does not take care of their minor child. Moreover, it was submitted that on 18.06.2021 at about 7:30 pm., the respondent no. 2 had snatched the service pistol of the petitioner, and had attempted to kill him and their minor son. Therefore, the petitioner had informed the Officer-in-Charge of Bhagaduttapur Police Outpost regarding the incident, which was recorded in G.D.E. It was submitted that immediately after the incident, the petitioner had left the matrimonial home and took shelter in the home of his younger brother, but the respondent no. 2 disturbed him there, as such, he had shifted to a guest house. It was submitted that on 24.03.2022, the petitioner had also lodged an FIR about the incidents which had occurred on 18.03.2022, which was registered as Dispur PS Case No. 679/2022.
6. It was submitted that even if the narration contained in the FIR was accepted to be gospel truth, then also no case for cruelty under section 498A IPC has been made out. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases, viz., (i) Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, (ii) Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, (2002
The court emphasized that the veracity of defense materials cannot be examined at the stage of quashing the FIR and that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly. It also highlighted that ....
The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised and that the court should not interfere with the investigation unless no cognizable offence is disclosed. I....
The court quashed the FIR under Section 420 IPC, finding no cognizable offence and highlighting the violation of natural justice principles in the registration process.
The court ruled that vague and generalized allegations in a FIR do not justify criminal proceedings, favoring the quashing of the FIR to prevent abuse of legal process.
The court held that an FIR alleging cognizable offences cannot be quashed merely based on claims of disability or false implication; the truth of allegations is to be assessed at trial.
The High Court cannot quash an FIR unless the allegations do not constitute an offence; the judiciary must respect the trial process and not supplant it with its judgment on the merits of the case.
Right to protection from sexual harassments is universally recognised basic human rights - Common minimum requirement of right has received global acceptance. This right has been embodied in Articles....
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
