Theswar Taro and 2 Ors v. The State of Assam

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010284702023

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1362/2023 THESWAR TARO AND 2 ORS S/O SRI LONKIRAM TARO R/O VILL-KARBI BLOCK (PAVOI) P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM 2: SRI ANANTA PEGU S/O LATE DARJI PEGU R/O VILL-2 NO. CHAKALA P.O. RAJABARI P.S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM 3: SMTI. KIRAN RONGHANGPI @ RONGHANG W/O SRI ANANTA PEGU D/O LATE LAKHIRAM RONGHANG R/O VILL-2 NO. CHAKALA P.O. RAJABARI P.S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY ITS PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/4

:: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

20.12.2023 Heard Mr. L. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State.

¶2This is a joint application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the PR Case No.302/2023 corresponding to Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No.297/2011.

¶3The petitioner Theswar Taro had alleged in the FIR that his 34 year old niece Kiran Ranghangpi was kidnapped by the petitioner Ananta Pegu. Theswar Taro also informed the police that Ananta Pegu was a married man having two children. According to the informant, he went to rescue his niece from the house of Ananta Pegu but his family members resisted him.

¶4On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against Ananta Pegu under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5Theswar Taro, Kiran Ranghangpi and Ananta Pegu have jointly filed this application stating that both Kiran and Ananta have married and now they are blessed with two children, named Kankana Pegu and Kaviya Pegu. They have stated in the petition that the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code is not a compoundable offence. Therefore, they have come to this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the entire case against Ananta Pegu. Page No.# 3/4

¶6I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.

¶7The 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.

(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, Page No.# 4/4 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."

¶8Reverting to the case in hand, I find that there is no possibility of conviction in this case in future. So, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue before the trail court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

¶9I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶10Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The PR Case No.302/2023 corresponding to Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No.297/2011 is quashed and set aside.

The criminal petition is disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant