VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Gauhati High Court 2023 › High Court of Gauhati

Riajul Islam @ Riaz Uddin Ahmed v. The State of Assam and 2 Ors

Disposed Of
Court
High Court of Gauhati
Decided
19 July 2023
Bench
Parthivjyoti Saikiaauthor
Case no.
Crl.Pet. 252/2023

Judgment

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010056822023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCrl.Pet./252/2023o RIAJULoISLAMo@oRIAZoUDDINoAHMEDo S/O-oABUoBAKKARoSIDDIQUE,oVILLAGE-oNO-2oRAMPUR,oP.S.oNORTHo LAKHIMPUR,oDIST.-oLAKHIMPUR,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo2oORSo REP.oBYoP.P.,oASSAM 2:TASMINAoBEGUM o(COMPLAINANT)oW/O-oRAFIKULoALI oVILLAGE-oKANDUAPATHAR oP.S.oNORTHoLAKHIMPUR oDIST.-oLAKHIMPUR oASSAM 3:RAJMINAoBEGUM o(VICTIM)oD/O-oRAFIKULoALI oW/O-oRIAZoUDDINoAHMEDo@oRIAJULoISLAM oVILLAGE-oNO-o2oRAMPUR oP.S.oNORTHoLAKHIMPUR oDIST.-oLAKHIMPUR oASSAo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMAHIBURoRAHMANo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/5 :: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

19.07.2023

Heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing State respondent.

¶2This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the P.R Case No.613/2022 arising out of G.R. Case No.1024/2018 and North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No.454/2018 registered under Section 143 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur.

¶3On 03.05.2018, the daughter of the informant was kidnapped by the petitioner and two other persons. The girl was over 16 years of age at the time of incident.

¶4After that the incident, the present petitioner socially married the girl. Out of their wedlock, on 12.10.2021, a girl child was also born.

¶5The learned counsel Mr. S. Rana representing the victim girl has supported the aforesaid fact and submits that the girl has been living happily with the present petitioner.

¶6I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. Page No.# 3/5

¶7The Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise.

¶8The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is the inherent power of the High Court for preventing the abuse of the process of the Court. The guidelines for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC are laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. The relevant paragraph 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 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 Page No.# 4/5 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 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."

¶9I find that under the given circumstances of the case, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case and allowing the criminal proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court. This is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC The criminal petition is allowed.

¶10Accordingly, the P.R Case No.613/2022 arising out of G.R. Case Page No.# 5/5 No.1024/2018 and North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No.454/2018 registered under Section 143 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur, is set aside and quashed. The criminal petition is disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.