IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases involving the interpretation of cognizable and non-cognizable offences.

1. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for State of Assam and other respondents.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, Shri Gopal Talukdar praying for quashing of the FIR dated 01.08.2021 filed by the respondent No. 3 before Officer-In-Charge of Barama Police Station and on the basis of which Barama P.S. Case No. 83/2021 was registered. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the charge sheet No. 61/21 dated 29.09.2021 which has been filed after completion of the investigation of Barama P.S. Case No. 83/2021.

3. The case of the petitioner as averred in the criminal petition, in brief, is that the petitioner is a practicing advocate in the courts at Bajali and Baksa since 2004. On 30.07.2021, one Monjit Roy, who is the client of the present petitioner, requested the present petitioner to write an FIR (First Information Report) regarding the death of his mother Jaya Roy near Barama Over Bridge on being knocked down by a vehicle bearing Registration number AS-25P-6814. Accordingly, on the request of his client, the present petitioner wrote the FIR and the said FIR was lodged before the Officer-In-Charge of Barama Police Station and on the basis of the said FIR Barama P.S. Case No. 82/2021 was registered under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code against the owner and rider of the said vehicle.

4. Thereafter, on 01.08.2021, the Investigating Officer of Barama P.S. Case No. 82/2021, namely, Mir Jahan Hussain had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Barama Police Station, inter alia, alleging that during investigation of Barama P.S. Case No. 82/2021, it came to the light that the name of the rider of the motorcycle in the FIR lodged by Shri Monjit Roy,on 30.07.2021 was wrongly mentioned as Utpal Thakuria, though, on the date of the accident, the motorcycle was driven by one Samarendra Thakuria, who is the brother of the Utpal Thakuria. The false statement was made in the FIR regarding the name of the rider only because of the fact that the actual rider, Samarendra Thakuria did not have the license to drive a motorcycle.

5. It is also alleged in the FIR that the informant of the FIR dated 30.07.2021 had confessed that he lodged the false FIR on the advice of the present petitioner to get the insurance money by misrepresenting the facts about the incident.

6. Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an advocate and has been practicing since long and has a reputation in the society and he has only drafted the FIR as per the instruction of the first informant, namely, Monjit Roy, and the allegation made against the present petitioner that he advised to mention wrong facts in the FIR is not true.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the first informant of the FIR was also the Investigating Officer and hence there is procedural irregularity in this case.

8. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, on the basis of the averment made in the FIR, no offence under section 120B/420/182/511/34 has been made out against the present petitioner. If any wrong statement has been made in the FIR, it is the first informant, Monjit Roy, who is liable and not the present petitioner, who was only a counsel and he had acted as per the instructions of his client, the first informant Monjit Roy, while drafting the FIR.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the present petitioner.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that even if the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner is allowed to be continued, it would not entail any conv