Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 266 (GAU)

Leena Majumdar v. State Of Assam

2020-02-24

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ajit Borthakur, J. - Heard Mr. K.D. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/informant. 2. By this petition under Section 482 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of Jorhat P.S. charge-sheet No. 718/2017 in connection with Jorhat P.S. Case No. 2253/2017 (corresponding to G.R. case No. 3137/2017) under Sections 448/427/506/34 of the IPC pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jorhat . 3. The petitioners have contended that the respondent No. 2/informant, who is the mother-in-law of the petitioner No. 1, filed an FIR on 16.10.2017 before the officer-in-charge of Jorhat P.S. alleging that on 15.10.2017, at around 1.20 p.m., the petitioner No. 1, who is married to her son Rajib Chakrabarty, along with her brother, the petitioner No. 3 and younger sister/petitioner No. 2 and four others, came to her residence situated at Rajabari Mission Compound at Jorhat and took away all the belongings including the ''stridhan'' of the petitioner No. 1 leaving only one wooden almirah under lock and key. It was suspected that in the said locked almirah, they might have left incriminating materials/objectionable materials with a view to jeopardize her political career and status in the society. Based on the said FIR, Jorhat P.S. Case No. 2253/2017 was registered and after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet being Jorhat P.S. C.S. No. 718/2017 under Sections 448/427/506/34 of the IPC against the petitioners, whereupon G.R. Case No. 3137/2017 was registered in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat and on being made over, the case is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jorhat. 4. The petitioners have stated that due to constant humiliation, the petitioner No.1 suffered, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house on 24.12.2016 and since then, she has been residing at her parental home at Guwahati. On 15.10.2017, she had brought some of the ''stridhan'' properties from her matrimonial house at Jorhat except one three door wooden almirah, where she kept valuable cloths (''pat'' and ''muga'' sets) and gold ornaments etc. which was not allowed to be brought by the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, on 16.10.2017, the respondent No. 2 lodged the said impugned false FIR against them. which was not allowed to be brought by the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, on 16.10.2017, the respondent No. 2 lodged the said impugned false FIR against them. Finding no way out of the vexed situation, she filed a complaint case in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), which was registered as C.R. case No. 5154C /2017 under Section 93 Cr.P.C., praying for recovery of her ''stridhan'' namely, the wooden almirah from the matrimonial house at Jorhat. In the aforesaid C.R. case No. 5154C /2017, by order, dated 15.12.2017, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati issued search warrant directing the Officer-in-Charge, Jorhat P.S. to search in the house of her husband Sri Rajib Chakrabarty and to seize the articles, if found and hand over them to her, on execution of a bond of Rs.4,00,000/-. Accordingly, the police executed the search warrant. She brought her said ''stridhan'', one wooden almirah, but it was found to be empty with its door opened and all the valuable articles therein were found missing. Accordingly, on consideration of the detailed police report, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 406/34 of the IPC against her husband and his mother, the respondent No. 2 herein, where the respondent No. 2 and her husband have entered appearance. In the meantime, the petitioners have further contended that the petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband seeking maintenance in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Guwahati, whereupon F.C. (Crl.) 650/2017 was registered and interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- only, per month, has been directed to be paid towards her maintenance. 5. Mr. K.D. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioner No. 1 being the daughter-in-law, went to her matrimonial house, that is the house of the respondent No. 2, to bring her ''stridhan'' and the aforesaid act cannot amount to a house trespass, as alleged in the charge-sheet. Mr. Chetri further submitted that the Investigating Officer, without appreciating the nature of the allegations made in the FIR, had arrived in a perverse finding of existence of prima facie case under Sections 448/427/506/34 of the IPC leading to miscarriage of justice and that the FIR is in sharp contrast to the findings in the charge-sheet. Mr. Mr. Chetri further submitted that the Investigating Officer, without appreciating the nature of the allegations made in the FIR, had arrived in a perverse finding of existence of prima facie case under Sections 448/427/506/34 of the IPC leading to miscarriage of justice and that the FIR is in sharp contrast to the findings in the charge-sheet. Mr. Chetri submitted that there is an allegation of retaining of a wooden almirah, which is admittedly a ''stridhan'' of the petitioner No. 1 and as the same had been brought by her on order of the Court, dated 15.12.2017, in connection with C.R. Case No. 5154C /2017, the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 3137/2017, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jorhat, will be an abuse of the process of the Court and against justice. 6. Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State/respondent No. 1, concurs with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, submitted that the instant proceeding has been brought after filing of the charge-sheet in the case, which prima facie case against the petitioners is established, after due investigation and as such, the charge-sheet and the corresponding criminal proceeding cannot be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Mr. Mahanta further submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR and the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet show existence of prima facie incriminating material regarding commission of offences of criminal trespass, causing mischief to the household property of the respondent No. 2 and criminal intimidation, in furtherance of the petitioners'' common intention, that is, not only against the petitioner No. 1, who is the daughter-in-law of the respondent No. 2/informant but also against the other two petitioners and from that point of view, the proceeding in question cannot be quashed. 8. I have considered the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and perused record. 9. 8. I have considered the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and perused record. 9. On perusal of the petition along with the documents annexed thereto and hearing the learned counsel of both sides, it transpires that the aforesaid Jorhat P.S. Case No. 2253/17, dated 16.10.2017 and the consequent filing of the charge-sheet being Jorhat P.S., C.S. No. 718/2017 in the case were related to the alleged incident that occurred on 16.10.2017 in the house of the respondent No. 2/informant. The petitioners, in Para 4 of their petition, admitted to have brought her ''stridhan property'' except one wooden almirah from her matrimonial home, that is, the house of her mother-in-law, respondent No. 2/informant. According to the petitioners, the said wooden almirah contained her valuable cloths, which on recovery and seizure along with one mattress, on execution of the search warrant, issued pursuant to the order of the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, dated 15.12.2017, found empty. Accordingly, the Jorhat P.S. submitted its report, dated 29.12.2017, to the said learned Court. It is, therefore, seen that taking away of ''stridhan'' by the petitioners was not in due process of law and the police, after investigation, having found prima facie material, laid a charge-sheet, for commission of the offences under Sections 448/427/506/34 of the IPC against the petitioners. 10. In the backdrop of the above facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that as there are some prima facie substance in the allegations and materials also exist to substantiate the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the aforesaid offences that emerged after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet, as prayed for, cannot be quashed on the ground that a false prosecution is initiated against them with any malafide intention to wreck vengeance, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. 12. The interim order of stay of proceeding, dated 17.08.2018 is accordingly vacated. wxyz The petition is disposed off. zyxw