IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be exercised in cases involving heinous and serious offences with a significant impact on society.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1.

2. This application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet No.94 dated 30.04.2019 as well as the proceedings in G. R. Case No. 3012/2016, registered under Sections 120-B/302/34 of IPC in respect of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case is that, the informant Shri Ashu Ram Das had lodged the FIR on 19.06.2016 before the Katigorah Police Station alleging inter alia that on 18.06.2016 at about 8:00 P.M. the accused No.2, Hasina Begum Laskar/wife of the petitioner called the victim Moni Ram Das to her house and took him with her. Then, suddenly the informant heard “bachao” “bachao” and rushed to the house of the accused and found that the accused persons had kept the door closed, but, somehow, the informant opened the door of the house and found his nephew was lying dead on the floor with several injuries. Thereafter he lodged the FIR. On receipt of the FIR, the Katigorah P. S. Case No.368/2016 under Sections 302/34 of IPC was registered and investigated the case accordingly. After completion of the investigation of the case, the charge- sheet was filed against the accused/petitioner along with the other co-accused under Sections 120B/302/34 of IPC.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Biswas that from the statements of the informant as well as other witnesses, it is seen that the present petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence and he was not involved in the alleged offence, but, the I.O. had falsely implicated his name and filed the charge-sheet against him along with the other co-accused. The actual fact of the case is that on 18.06.2016 at about 8.30 P.M., when the petitioner was in Mosque for performing ‘Tarabi’ namaas, the victim/deceased entered into his house by breaking the door when his wife/co-accused namely Hasina Begum was at home along with their three minor children. The deceased tried to commit rape on her, but somehow, she released herself from the grip of the deceased and finding a dao to safe herself, she hit the deceased with the said dao for which he failed down on the ground. Thereafter, the co-accused immediately raised alarm and hearing her human cry the neighboring people as well as the present petitioner came from the Mosque and arrived at the place of occurrence.

5. Subsequently, in the next morning i.e. on 19.06.2016 at about 7.30 A.M., the wife of the petitioner/co-accused lodged an FIR before the Katigorah Police Station narrating the whole incident. On receipt of the said FIR, the case has been registered as Katigorah P.S. Case No.367/2016, under Sections 457/354 (B) of IPC and started the investigation. But, during the investigation, the deceased died on 19.06.2016 and hence, the final report was submitted in the FIR lodged by the co-accused, namely Hasina Begum.

6. He further submitted that the aforesaid case and the charge under Sections 120B/302/34 of IPC are not attracted against the present petitioner. Upon perusal of the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C as well as the FIR dated 19.06.2016, it has been revealed that the accused/petitioner was not present in the place of occurrence and at the relevant time of the incident he was in the Mosque offering ‘Tarabi’ namaas. He also submitted that the accused/petitioner is a teacher by profession and for the said incident he already lost his prestige in society, locality and also amongst his student. He further submitted that the I.O during the investigation of this case did not consider the fact that the accused/petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and it was his wife, who assaulted the deceased only to safe herself in her private defence who was alone along with her three children at the relevant time of incident.

7. In support of