Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 976 (GAU)

Manoj Thakur v. State of Assam

2017-07-25

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This is an application, under Section 482 Cr.PC, filed by the petitioner, for quashing the FIR and the proceeding initiated in connection with Bokakhat PS Case No. 156/2016 under Section 363(A) of the IPC. 2. I have perused the petition as well as copy of the FIR furnished with the petition. 3. It appears from the contents of the FIR that Smt. Sangita Thakur and Smt. Bina Thakur, lodged the FIR with the Bokakhat Police Station alleging that after the death of their husband Lt. Anuj Thakur, their two minor children were taken by the petitioner in his custody with the assurance that he will put them in school for their education. But, for about 6 (six) months thereafter, there was no communication between the petitioner and the informants, i.e. the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in the instant petition for which they suspected that both the children might have been sold out to some persons by the present petitioner. Even the informants/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were not allowed to communicate with their children by the petitioner raising the doubt in their minds. 4. On receipt of the FIR, Bokakhat Police Station registered a case, being No. 156/2016, under Section 363(A) of the IPC. 5. The state respondent No. 1 is represented by learned Additional PP Mr. B Sarma. The petitioner is represented by learned counsel, Md. Giash Uddin. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3, inspite of service of notice upon them, as appears from the office note dated 23.2.2017, have not entered appearance and contested this proceeding. 6. It appears from the FIR itself that both the children were put in the custody of the present petitioner by their mothers on their own, on being assured that the petitioner will take care of their education. The FIR has been lodged while the respondent Nos. 2 & 3/informants failed to contact their children during their stay with the petitioner, and therefore, they suspected that their children might have been sold out to some other persons by the present petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this court, certified copies of three (3) order dated 28.6.2016, and order dated 30.6.2016, passed in Bokakhat Police Station Case No. 156/2006 (PRC No. 180/2016). It appears from the order dated 28.6.2016 that the Investigating Police Officer forwarded both the children of the informants/ respondent Nos. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this court, certified copies of three (3) order dated 28.6.2016, and order dated 30.6.2016, passed in Bokakhat Police Station Case No. 156/2006 (PRC No. 180/2016). It appears from the order dated 28.6.2016 that the Investigating Police Officer forwarded both the children of the informants/ respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bokakhat, for recording their statements under Section 164 Cr.PC. Both the children were aged about 6 to 7 years respectively. Their names are Miss. Kiron Thakur and Master Suraj Thakur. The statements of the said two minor children were recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokakhat, on 30.6.2016. On perusal of the statements so recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, it appears that the present petitioner had admitted both of them in school for their education. There does not appear to have any allegations of selling them to other persons by the present petitioner as well as engaging them in begging and in any other like job. Therefore, prima-facie, the allegations made in the FIR, appears to be inconsistent with the statements of the aforesaid two children recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC. 8. That apart, it appears from the order dated 30.6.2016 passed in the aforesaid case by the in-charge Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bokakhat that they were given in the custody of their respective mother on their prayer. The third order dated 28.6.2016 makes it appear that the present petitioner also sought custody of the aforesaid two children but record does not reveal that the said children were put in his custody. As indicated above, the record reveals that, vide order dated 30.6.2016, both the children were put in the custody of their respective mother. 9. The position being as above, the allegations made in the FIR, appears to be not based on facts. 10. In view of the above, the FIR, on the basis of which Bokakhat Police Station registered the case, being No. 156/2016 (PRC No. 180/2016), under Section 363(A) of the IPC is quashed. 11. The certified copy of the orders produced before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Md. Giash Uddin, be kept in the record for reference in future in case of any necessity. 12. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.