Smt. Tileswari Roy and Anr v. The State of Assam and Anr

ORDER

01.03.2023 Heard Mr. B M Deka, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and Mr. P. Adhikari, learned counsel for the private respondent. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing the FIR dated 14.05.2019 and the charge sheet dated 30.05.2019 in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 241/2019 under Sections 294/336 of the IPC and also for quashing the connected PRC Case No. 1796/2019. The present two petitioners are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of Rinki Roy. Since her marriage, the two petitioners never accepted her as their daughter-in-law. Rinki Roy lived separately with her husband. The petitioners also reside in a nearby house. On 13.05.2019, the petitioners allegedly pelted stones towards the house of Rinki Roy. The daughter of Rinki Roy miraculously escaped from being hurt because of the acts of the petitioners. Rinki Roy lodged an FIR before the Police alleging the aforesaid facts. On conclusion of investigation, Police filed the charge sheet against the two petitioners. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. The guidelines for quashing FIR/charge sheet have been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is quoted as under: " 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 Page No.# 3/5 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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 FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions Page No.# 4/5 of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court has held that where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value or accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, in such a case, the power under Section 482 CrPC can be used. The Supreme Court has cautioned that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases. In the case in hand, it is clear that the petitioners never accepted the informant Rinki Roy as their daughter in law and for a long time, they are having quarrels with each other. The present allegation is that the petitioners throw stones towards the house of Rinki Roy. This act does not constitute an offence under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code. Stone pelting is normally not a dangerous act for endangering human lives. This court is of the opinion that the allegations made in the FIR even if taken at their face value do not prima facie make out a criminal case against the petitioners. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Page No.# 5/5 Accordingly, the FIR dated 14.05.2019 and the charge sheet dated 30.05.2019 in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 241/2019 under Sections 294/336 of the IPC and the connected PRC Case No. 1796/2019 are quashed. The criminal petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010045502020 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCrl.Pet./185/2020o SMT.oTILESWARIoROYoANDoANR.o W/OoLT.oSANANKAoMOHANoROY,oR/OoVILL.oKENDUGURIoNEARoKALIo MANDIR,oP.O.oBONDA,oP.S.oNOONMATI,oGUWAHATI-781026,oKAMRUPo(M),o ASSAM 2:oREKHARANIoROY oD/OoLT.oSANANKAoMOHANoROY oR/OoVILL.oKENDUGURIoNEARoKALIoMANDIR oP.O.oBONDA oP.S.oNOONMATI oGUWAHATI-781026 oKAMRUPo(M) oASSAo VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDoANR.o REP.oBYoTHEoPP,oASSAM 2:RINKIoROY oW/OoMADHUSUDHANoROY oR/OoVILL.oKENDUGURIoNEARoKALIoMANDIR oP.O.oBONDA oP.S.oNOONMATI oGUWAHATI-781026 oKAMRUPo(M) oASSAo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMRoBoMoDEKAo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA