Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Robin Phukan
Hazarat Ali Son of Late Abdul Paramanik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam Rep. By The PP – Respondent
JUDGEMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, respondent No. 1; and Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), eight petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceeding of C.R. Case No. 32/2021, under Sections 147/149/448/294/ 324/326/354/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara (trail court) and also the order dated 04.12.2021, passed by the learned trial court by which cognizance of the offence under the aforementioned sections were taken against the petitioners.
Background Facts:-
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are adumbrated herein below:-
“On 05.02.2021, one Moslema Khatun, the respondent No. 2 lodged one complaint case before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara alleging inter-alia amongst others that on 28.12.2020, at about 12 noon, she went to her land along with Momtaz Begum situated at Ramhrrir Char Part – 3 and then, on the behest of petitioner No. 1,
The court emphasized that a Magistrate must demonstrate satisfaction regarding grounds for proceeding against accused before issuing summons, and quashing of proceedings should be an exception.
The court ruled that an FIR cannot be quashed based on allegations of mala fides if it discloses cognizable offences, emphasizing the necessity of a trial to assess the truth of the allegations.
The court cannot quash an FIR based on allegations of mala fides or insufficient evidence; it must determine if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
The court ruled that an FIR can only be quashed if the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence, and the truthfulness of the allegations cannot be determined at the quashing stage.
The court established that charges cannot be sustained without adequate evidence, and magistrates must provide reasons for their decisions to ensure justice.
The court held that allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under Section 170 IPC, and quashing was not warranted at this stage.
The court held that allegations in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, including voyeurism and assault, and dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.
The court upheld the FIR against the petitioner, ruling that sufficient allegations existed to constitute cognizable offences, and the truth of these allegations could not be evaluated at the quashin....
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
