Jamaluddin Ahmed and Anr v. The State of Assam

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010120172023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCrl.Pet./535/2023o JAMALUDDINoAHMEDoANDoANRo S/OoNURoHUSSAINo R/OoVILL-oDHALPURo P.O.oDHALPUR,oP.S.oSIPAJHARo DIST.oDARRANG,oASSAM,o PIN-784145 2:oMONUWARAoKHATUN oW/OoJAMALUDDINoAHMEDo R/OoVILL-oDHALPURo P.O.oDHALPURo P.S.oSIPAJHARo DIST.oDARRANG oASSAM oPIN-78414o VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REP.oBYoTHEoPP,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oMoKoHUSSAINo 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.K. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing State respondent.

¶2This is a joint application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the charge sheet being C.S. No.265/2017 relating to G.R. Case No.3150/2017 arising out of Sipajhar P.S. Case No.751/2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Darrang, Mangaldai.

¶3The wife Monuwara Khatun lodged a complaint against her husband Jamaluddin Ahmed and his family members alleging offences under Sections 323/447/448/420/307/354/406 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 34 of the said Code. Finally, the complaint was charge sheeted by police as referred to above.

¶4Now, both husband and wife have joined together to file the present petition under Section 482 of the CrPC stating that they have compromised their dispute and have been living peacefully together.

¶5I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.

¶6The 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9 SCC 677, held that when a Page No.# 3/5 compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would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.

¶7The 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 under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Page No.# 4/5 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."

¶8I 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.

¶9Accordingly, the charge sheet being C.S. No.265/2017 relating to G.R. Case No.3150/2017 arising out of Sipajhar P.S. Case No.751/2017 Page No.# 5/5 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Darrang, Mangaldai, is set aside and quashed. The criminal petition is disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant