Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 247 (GAU)

Paniram Barman v. Prafulla Chandra Ray

2020-02-20

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard the learned counsel Mr. B. M. Deka, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, praying for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 01.07.2018, in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 363/2018, registered under Sections 120(B)/447/506 of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing of P.R.C. Case No. 1792/2018, arising out of the said F.I.R., pending before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 3. Shorn of details, the prosecution case against the petitioners may be stated as under. 4. Mintu Roy owns a plot of land measuring 15 Lechas. He had given that land on rent basis to a person named Paniram Barman, who runs a Truck Garage on that land. 5. Now, Prafulla Chandra Roy, the brother of Mintu Roy, by filing an F.I.R. on 01.07.2018, has alleged that the aforesaid Paniram Barman has been doing illegal activities in the said plot of land. It is also alleged that the said Paniram Barman in the company of a person named Nirmal Boro has been creating terror in the locality. Prafulla Chandra Roy has alleged that Nirmal Boro is a professional murderer. 6. On the basis of the said F.I.R., Police registered the case, being Noonmati P.S. Case No. 363/2018, under Sections 120(B)/447/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, Police also recorded statements of the informant and one witness named Krishna Chetry. Finally, on conclusion of investigation, Police filed the Charge-Sheet against Paniram Barman and Nirmal Boro alleging that they have committed offence under Sections 447 & 507 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences against the petitioners and issued notice to them. Both the petitioners appeared before the Court below in order to face the trial. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the informant and his brother have conspired together and filed this false case in order to evict the petitioners from their land. According to the petitioners, Paniram Barman even filed a Suit, being T.S. No. 180/2016 in the Court of Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, praying for a declaration that he is a lawful tenant and also prayed for permanent injunction. According to the petitioners, Paniram Barman even filed a Suit, being T.S. No. 180/2016 in the Court of Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, praying for a declaration that he is a lawful tenant and also prayed for permanent injunction. The petitioners have claimed that the Munsiff''s Court decreed the said Suit in their favour. A copy of the judgment has been filed by the petitioner. 8. I have gone through the said judgment and found that it was an ex-parte decree, which means that the owner of the land did not contest that case. From the judgment of the Munsiff, it appears that the respondent was trying to evict the petitioners from the land. There is no doubt that the petitioners are tenants of the brother of Prafulla Chandra Roy. Therefore, the occupation of the land by the petitioners cannot be termed as illegal and as such, there cannot be any criminal trespass. 9. During the investigation, Police recorded statement of an independent witness named Krishna Chetry. He had stated before the Police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that the petitioners paid some advance rent to their landlord and the said landlord did not return them the money and therefore, they are not vacating the land. Krishna Chetry also stated that he has no knowledge about the so called illegal activities as alleged by the informant. 10. In State of Haryana & Ors. vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 , the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C and has held --- wxyz "102. 10. In State of Haryana & Ors. vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 , the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C and has held --- wxyz "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. zyxw wxyz (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. zyxw wxyz (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. zyxw wxyz (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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. zyxw wxyz (4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. zyxw wxyz (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. zyxw wxyz (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. zyxw wxyz (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. zyxw wxyz (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." zyxw 11. Reverting to the case in hand, I find that the story projected in the F.I.R. does not make out a prima facie criminal case. Therefore, allowing the proceeding to continue against the petitioners would be a travesty of justice. I, therefore, hold that this is a fit case for quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the F.I.R. dated 01.07.2018, pertaining to Noonmati P.S. Case No. 363/2018 and proceeding in P.R.C. Case No. 1792/2018, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, are quashed. 12. The criminal petition is, accordingly, disposed of.