Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 2234
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Sheikh Noor Iman Mukhtar Son of Late Sheikh Nur Mahammad – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, represented by P. P. Assam – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 851 Of 2019
Decided On : 13-11-2025
For the Appellants :Mr. N. Mahajan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. L.K. Bora, learned counsel, Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
The FIR was quashed as it did not disclose any cognizable offence, highlighting the significance of preventing abuse of court processes in cases rooted in personal disputes.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482, 397, and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294, 323, and 511 - Quashing of FIR - The FIR was lodged amidst an ongoing boundary dispute, characterized as a manifestation of mala fide intentions - The court found that no offence was made out under the sections invoked and that the proceedings represented an abuse of legal process. (Paras 2, 6, 17, and 19)
(B) Criminal Law - Exercise of Power - The court reiterated the principles laid out in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, highlighting circumstances under which FIRs may be quashed when no prima facie case exists. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR lodged by the informant, characterized by a long-standing boundary dispute and allegations of threats without substantiating criminal acts. The FIR was deemed a retaliatory action following the petitioner's earlier complaint against the informant. (Paras 3, 4, and 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found no actionable offence in the FIR and ruled that the FIR was filed with malicious intent, concluding the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the court’s process. (Paras 17 and 19)
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR constituted a legitimate criminal complaint or was merely a continuation of personal disputes reflective of civil issues. (Par 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled against the continuation of the FIR, emphasizing that the allegations did not constitute an offence and affirming the importance of preventing misuse of legal processes. (Paras 10 and 18)
Result: The FIR dated 06.07.2019 was set aside and quashed; the criminal petition was allowed. (Para 19)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of boundary dispute and firs (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on the intent of firs (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. malafide intention and abuse of process (Para 8 , 17) |
| 4. principles for quashing fir (Para 9 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. conclusion to quash the fir (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. L. K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the informant/respondent No. 2 and Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state respondent.
2. By way of this petition under Section 482 / 397/ 401 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR dated 06.07.2019 pertaining to Bhangagarh PS Case No. 243/2019 registered under Section 294 / 323/ 511 of IPC . Pertinent that by order dated 31.07.2019 proceedings in connection with the said FIR was stayed until further orders by way of an interim protection.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.07.2019 one Seikh Noor Iman Mukhtar (respondent No. 2) lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Bhangagarh Police Station, stating, inter alia, that on last 05.07.2019 at about 5.30 PM when two police personnel came and called him and his manager outside, the petitioner rebuked and threatened them of assaulting and cutting. Upon receipt of the same, the said case was registered.
4. The informant/respondent No. 2 is the elder brother of the petitioner No. 1 and they reside in the adjacent buildings and there has been a long period of boundary dispute going on between them. In fact, in the year 2001 also pursuant to both the parties lodging criminal complaints against each other, the matter was later on compromised and thereafter a compromise deed was executed between them on 06.07.2001.
5. Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that despite the aforesaid settlement having entered between the petitioner and the informant/respondent No. 2, the informant/respondent No. 2 violated the terms of the settlement deed for which the petitioner had informed the jurisdictional police official on 05.07.2019 and had also lodged an FIR on that day itself against the informant/ respondent No. 2, which was registered as Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 242/2019 under Section 420 of IPC . He further submits that the instant FIR dated 06.07.2019 is nothing but a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner No. 1 on 05.07.2019. He further submits that the petitioner also filed another FIR dated 10.07.2019 against the respondent No. 2 which was registered as Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 252/2019 under Section 120 (B)/420 . He further submits that no criminal case whatsoever is made out in the body of the allegations made in the FIR in question. He further submits that the FIR is manifestly attended with mala fide only with an ulterior motive for racking vengeance on the petitioner in view of their long personal disputes between them.
6. Per contra, Mr. L. K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the informant/respondent No. 2 in his usual fairness submits that considering that both the parties have filed FIRs against each other and the undisputed fact being their long boundary dispute pending between the two, criminal cases were lodged by both of them against each other appears to be totally civil in nature. He further submits, on instruction, that the informant/respondent No. 2 is ready and willing to abide by the terms of settlement arrived at between them and to live peacefully in his building without causing any disturbance or annoyance to the petitioner pending adjudication of the civil suit in question.
7. Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent also fairly contends that the averments made in the FIR on the face of it does not constitute any criminal offence whatsoever.
8. I have given my prudent consideration to the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and also have perused the material availab
