THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Ganga Phukan S/o Sri Pradip Phukan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam - Respondent
Crl.Pet./644/2022
Decided On : 13-02-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Application to quash an order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate - Allegations of police misconduct and counter-allegations - The court emphasized the importance of allowing the trial to proceed where sufficient grounds for cognizance exist. (Paras 1 , 10 , 18 )
(B) Criminal Procedure - The inherent power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases to prevent abuse of process - The court found that the possibility of conviction was not remote and the allegations warranted further investigation. (Paras 6 , 18 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a police officer, faced allegations of torturing a college student and his friend during a curfew enforcement, which were countered by a previous FIR against the student. The learned CJM issued summons based on a Narazi petition after a final report favored the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the CJM's decision to issue summons, noting that there were sufficient grounds for taking cognizance of the case.
Issues: The main issues involved whether the FIR against the petitioner was a retaliatory act and whether the learned CJM acted appropriately in taking cognizance without notice to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the learned CJM provided sound reasoning for issuing notice, and the case was at an initial stage where the potential for conviction could not be dismissed outright.
Result: Petition dismissed.
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC for short) with prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 22.05.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, (CJM for short), Kokrajhar in CR case No. 36/2022. The petitioner in this case is Ganga Phukan who is accused in connection with CR case No. 36/2023 under Sections 320/324 of the IPC.
2. The genesis of the case is that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner by Pranjit Kumar Wary who is the father of Antar Jyoti Wary, alleging that the petitioner tortured Antar Jyoti Wary and his friend on 15.10.2021. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is the S.I. of Police posted at Kokrajhar Police Station. Initially, Antar Jyoti Wary was arrayed as an accused in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. case No. 729/2021 under Sections 143/147/341/353/294/427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), read with Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, wherein it has been alleged that, on 14.10.2021, at about 8:30 p.m., the petitioner who was posted at Kokrajhar Police Station was in a patrolling duty with the O.C., when they noticed two groups of youths, armed with lathi involved in a heated and aggressive confrontation. The petitioner tried to prevent the fight and one group immediately escaped whereas, Antar Jyoti Wary and Dipunjoy Brahma, instead of complying with the direction and instruction of the police team, became more aggressive and pulled out the star plates from the petitioner's uniform, tearing his uniform in the process. Both the miscreants uttered obscene words and hurled abuses at the patrolling team. Both the miscreants including Antar Jyoti were brought to the Police Station. Investigation commenced and charge-sheet was submitted against the miscreants under Sections 341/353/294/427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) read with Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, (due to the Pandemic prevalent at that time). This case then culminated into GR case No. 1226/2021 and PRC No. 03/2022, and cognizance was taken against Antar Jyoti and his co-accused.
3. As a counterblast, Antar Jyoti’s father, Shri Pranjit Kumar Wary (hereinafter respondent No. 2), lodged an FIR as an afterthought on 18.10.2021, which was registered as Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 751/2021 under Sections 323/324 of the IPC, GD entry No. 629 dated 18.10.2021, and this case was registered as GR No. 1264/2021, and an S.I., Ananda Rabha of Kokrajhar P.S., was entrusted with the investigation. The FIR was registered after the enquiry report dated 22.10.2021. The allegation against the petitioner in the instant case is that on 14.19.2021, at about 8:30 p.m., the respondent No. 2's son, Antar Jyoti and his friend Dipunjay with three others went to observe Durga Puja at Kokrajhar town, Ward No. 1. At that time, a police team led by S.I. Ganga Phukan were dispersing the crowd and Antar Jyoti along with his friends were complying with the instruction of the police. At the time of crossing the road, Antar Jyoti politely addressing S.I. Ganga Phukan as Sir, and asked about the duration of the curfew and reason for dispersing the crowd. At this, the police team became aggressive and tortured Antar Jyoti and his friend Dipunjay on the road in presence of the general public. Later on, both of them were forcibly picked up in the police vehicle and were tortured inside the van as well as in the Kokrajhar Police Station. As a result, Antar Jyoti and his friend sustained several injuries which also included cut injuries. Consequentially, they had to be provided medical treatment.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the FIR of the instant case was registered after an enquiry report dated 22.10.2021. Impartial, fair and proper investigation was conducted and the medico-legal report reveals that the respondent No. 2's son- Antar Jyoti did not sustain any injury and thus, final report being FR No. 406/2021 date
Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr Vs The State of U.P. & Anr.
Zunaid & Anr Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
Rakesh & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
The court affirmed that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC should be exercised sparingly, emphasizing the need for a trial when sufficient grounds for cognizance exist.
(1) If a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of offence alleged against accused, Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.(2) Cognizance of offence – Magistrate can ignore conclusion ....
The court emphasized that a complaint filed after significant delay, introducing new allegations, can constitute an abuse of process, especially when prior investigations contradict the claims.
The court emphasized the necessity of reasoned orders in judicial decisions and the inherent power to quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of the legal process.
The court ruled that a subsequent complaint based on previously resolved allegations constitutes an abuse of process, justifying its quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
A magistrate can independently assess investigation materials and register a protest petition as a complaint if sufficient grounds are provided, emphasizing the standard of prima facie evidence at th....
The final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. does not bind the Magistrate, who has the power to take cognizance of offences based on the material collected during investigation.
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.