Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1371 (GAU)

Sauravsureka v. State of Assam

2019-12-18

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2019
ORDER : Ajit Borthakur, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent State. 2. By this petition under Section 482 r/w Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR and the entire proceeding in connection with Dispur PS Case No. 3286/2019(GR No. 1739/2019) under section 406/420 of the IPC against the petitioner. 3. Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by profession and the respondent No. 3, being the wife of the respondent No. 2/informant, was the registered owner of the vehicle, Hyundai Grand i10 Sports 1.2., bearing Registration No. AS-01-DX-7900 sold it to the present petitioner. Mr. Das further submits that the petitioner had earlier purchased the said vehicle on good faith from one Mohit Dugar, who, in connivance with one Arun Yadav, misrepresented the facts and fraudulently sold the vehicle in the month of May, 2019, which fact came to light only when the respondent No. 2 filed the FIR. According to Mr. Das, on having come to light the complete story, the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 3 have mutually decided to settled the matter and accordingly, executed a Notarised Deed of Agreement, which is annexed as Annexure-2 and as such, it will be an abuse of the process of law, if the FIR is not quashed in respect of the petitioner, who was innocent in the entire transactions. 4. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. I. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submit No Objection against quashing as prayed for by the petitioner. 5. The brief FIR, dated 26.10.2019, lodged by the respondent No. 2 read as here in below extracted: "To The Officer-in-Charge, Dispur Police Station Dated: 26.10.2019 Sub: Ejahar Sir, Respectful submission is that, the white Hyundai Grand I 10 car(VIN-MALA851CLJM 955561, Engine No. G4LAJM141479), owned by my spouse, has been rented out under agreement with one Arun Yadav, son of Bikram Yadav, proprietor of D.R. Enterprise at an amount of 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) per month. But, today I saw in the M-Parivahan App that the aforesaid vehicle was transferred in someone else's name, i.e. Mr. Saurav Sureka, S.M. Enterprise, M.G. Road, Fancy Bazar, Ghy-01. But, today I saw in the M-Parivahan App that the aforesaid vehicle was transferred in someone else's name, i.e. Mr. Saurav Sureka, S.M. Enterprise, M.G. Road, Fancy Bazar, Ghy-01. Since yesterday, Arun Yadav's phone number has been switched off. Even after going to his home, he could not be found. Therefore, Your Goodself is kindly requested to assist me properly in the aforesaid matter. Yours truly, Sd/- Rajib Rangongshi Downtown, House no. 27 Phone no. 9707220851/8473880197 Received and registered Dispur P.S. Case no. 3286/2019 u/s. 420/406 I.P.C. S.I.A. Baruah will investigate the case. Sd/- Sasadhar Kalita Officer-in-Charge Dispur Police Station, Ghy-6 Dated 26.10.2019" 6. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court can exercise the inherent jurisdiction, inter-alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, with intent to protect the interest of an innocent person from an unjustified prosecution. In the present case, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC may be compounded by the person cheated with the permission of the Court and the offence under Section 406 of the IPC may also be compounded by the owner of the property in respect of which, the breach of trust has been committed, with the permission of the court. These legal requirements are fulfilled by both sides by executing the Deed of Agreement vide Annexure-2, the affidavit sworn by the respondent No. 3 vide Annexure-3 and the affidavit sworn by the respondent No. 2/informant vide Annexure-4 making the petitioner's prosecution and investigation against him into the allegation made in the FIR unnecessary. 7. In Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2012) 72 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised sparingly to interfere with investigation/FIR, where there is no chance of recording conviction against accused and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be futile. 8. 7. In Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2012) 72 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised sparingly to interfere with investigation/FIR, where there is no chance of recording conviction against accused and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be futile. 8. In view of the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances, discussed above and in the light of the principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above noted case, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, this court is of the considered opinion that it is desirable in the interest of justice, to quash the FIR, bearing Dispur PS Case No. 3286/2019 (CR Case No. 17392/2019) under Sections 406/420 of the IPC and the entire proceeding connected there to, in respect of the petitioner only and accordingly it is ordered. 9. With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.