Back
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Sefali Sutradhar W/o. Prasenjit Sutradhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned Addl. PP, Assam.
2. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C., read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for quashing the proceeding in CR Case No.112/2018 under section 211 IPC, pending in the court of JMFC, Bongaigaon.
3. The brief fact leading to the filing of the present case is that the sister-in-law of the petitioner filed a case against her husband on 21.03.2018, before the Manikpur PS which was registered as Manikpur PS Case No.106/2018, under section 376/511/506/34 IPC. According to the petitioner, such FIR was a false and fabricated one and the same was lodged for the reason that here was a land dispute between the husband of the petitioner and her brother-in-law.
4. Accordingly, being faced with such a false FIR alleging serious offences of rape, the petitioner also filed a counter case against her brother-in-law alleging rape which was registered as Manikpur PS case No.107/2018 registered under 376/511/354B/34 IPC.
5. During the pendency of such investigation both the brothers
Cognizance of an offence under Section 211 IPC requires a written complaint as per Section 340 Cr.P.C., and failure to comply renders the proceedings invalid.
Prosecution for offences under Section 211 IPC requires a complaint from the concerned Court; police action without such complaint lacks jurisdiction and cannot sustain prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. to be made out, the complaint must falsely charge a person with having committed an offence, with the....
(1) Offences referred to under Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. will get attracted only with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.(2) In a case....
The court affirmed that a pending police investigation does not bar subsequent complaints on similar allegations, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The subsequent FIR was not an abuse of process of law and was not frivolous or vexatious. The nature of allegations described in the FIR were continuing in nature, and hence, the FIR was not barred b....
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
