Smti. Renu Bala Kathar Teron and Anr v. The State of Assam and Anr

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010202982024 ooooooo undefined ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCrl.Pet./1205/2024o SMTI.oRENUoBALAoKATHARoTERONoANDoANRo W/OoLATEoDHIRENoTERONo R/OoVILL-oTALONI,oP.O.oDHUPGURI,oPIN-782403,oP.S.oKHETRI,oDIST.o KAMRUP,oASSAM 2:oSMTI.oPRIYANKAoTERON oD/OoLATEoDHIRENoTERONo R/OoVILL-oTALONI oP.O.oDHUPGURI oPIN-782403 oP.S.oKHETRI oDIST.oKAMRUP oASSAo VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDoANRo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoPP,oASSAM 2:SRIoHEMRAJoRONGPEE oS/OoDOLOIoRONGPEEo R/OoVILL-oSUKURIPARAo P.O.oGANDHIoNAGAR o P.S.oKHETRI oDIST.oKAMRUPo(M) oASSAo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oAoBHATTACHARYA,oMRoSoPAUL,MS.oKoMALAKAR,MR.oAo BHATTACHARJEEo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAM,oo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

17.12.2024

Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the informant.

¶2This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the FIR in respect of Khetri P.S. Case No.150/2023.

¶3In an FIR dated 11.11.2019, the wife of the respondent Mr. Hemraj Rongpee, it was stated that she had married him according to the Special Marriage Act. After some days, Smti. Kanchan Ingti, Smti. Nandita Rongpee and Shri Doloi Rongpee had put pressure upon Hemraj Rongpee to ask for dowry. On that issue, Hemraj Rongpee started to unleash physical and mental harassment to the informant. On 30.10.2019, they came to the house of the informant and abused her with filthy languages.

¶4Accordingly, police registered the case as Khetri P.S. Case No.193/2019 under Section 498(A) of the IPC.

¶5Thereafter, on 19.07.2023, Mr. Hemraj Rongpee lodged an FIR against his wife, the petitioner no.2 and his mother-in-law, the present petitioner no.1. He alleged that his wife and her family concealed many things from him before his marriage. He claims that his wife admitted in a court proceeding that she was pregnant at one point of time and had aborted her pregnancy. The husband did not know this. He also came to know that before his marriage with his wife, she was maintaining relationship with another person with whom she had eloped and stayed for a week. According to the Page No.# 3/4 husband, his wife was in a live-in relationship with another person for a long period of 6/7 years. The husband has claimed that his wife married him only to have hold upon the money of her husband.

¶6The present petitioners being the wife and mother-in-law of Hemraj Rongpee have claimed that the allegations brought against them in the said FIR, does not disclose any prima facie case against them.

¶7I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

¶8The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads 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 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. Page No.# 4/4

(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."

¶9Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations brought by Hemraj Rongpee do not constitute a prima facie case against the present petitioners. Therefore, under the given circumstances of the case, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. So, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

¶10This Court finds this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The criminal petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings relating to the FIR in respect of Khetri P.S. Case No.150/2023, is quashed and set aside.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant