ORDER

06.06.2022.

Date :

Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Bori, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. A. Tatak, learned counsel for the private respondent.

Mr. Tatak has submitted that he needs some time to take instruction as because the private respondent has not contacted him for a long time. Mr. Tatak further submits that he has issued notice to that effect.

Mr. Panging has objected to this on two grounds. The first ground is that this is a long pending matter and the second ground is that the learned counsel for the private respondent has not yet withdrawn his Vakalatnama and therefore, he is the duty bound to submit on behalf of the private respondent.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. I have found that the submission of Mr. Panging has forced in it. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Tatak is rejected.

This is an application filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the FIR in respect of Nirjuli P.S. case No. 21/2020 under Sections

417/420/468/406/34 of the IPC.

The informant/private respondent of the FIR is the husband of the petitioner. It has been submitted that she is the third wife of the informant. It is alleged in the FIR that the informant had purchased 1600 Sq. Mtrs. of land by paying his hard earned money. The land was actually purchased in the name of the petitioner though she never contributed any money at the time of the purchase of the land by the private respondent. It is stated that according to the local customs, women cannot sell or purchase land in the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

But the petitioner fraudulently manufactured a sale deed in respect of the said land and accepted an advance payment also. When the petitioner came to know about the fact, he confronted his wife who in return threatened him of committing suicide.

Mr. Panging submitted that the petitioner has filed a divorce proceeding against the private respondent and the present FIR is counterblast of that proceeding.

I have considered the submission of Mr. Panging.

In State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held ---

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an or