Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 368 (GAU)

Tumge Basar v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2020-03-11

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. G. Bam, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside and quashing the FIR No. 03/2018 U/s 498(A) IPC dated 02.05.2018 (State of A.PVs- Shri Ibom Zirdo), presently pending before the Officer-In-Charge, Basar Police Station for investigation. 3. In State Of Haryana and Ors Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 , the Hon,ble Supreme Court 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 (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 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. 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 wxyz In paragraph 103 of Bhajan lal,s case (supra) the Apex court has held the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases. Apex Court further cautioned that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the Complaint and the extra ordinary inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim and caprice." zyxw 4. With the settled law on the point, I shall take up the present petition. For appreciation of the present petition, the prosecution case against Smti Gepu Basar and Shri Ibom Zirdo as revealed by the FIR is like this- wxyz On 30th April 2018 at around 9.30. P.M, the son-in-law of the informant had beaten up the daughter of the informant. For appreciation of the present petition, the prosecution case against Smti Gepu Basar and Shri Ibom Zirdo as revealed by the FIR is like this- wxyz On 30th April 2018 at around 9.30. P.M, the son-in-law of the informant had beaten up the daughter of the informant. The petitioner Shri Tumge Basar alleged that his daughter was unnecessarily beaten by her husband zyxw . 5. On the basis of the said FIR, Police registered the case under Section 498(A) of the IPC. Now the informant, Shri Tumge Basar; his daughter Smti Gepu Basar as well as her husband Shri Ibom Zirdo have jointly come before this Court and filed this application under Section 498(A) of the IPC praying for quashing the FIR on the ground that the aforesaid FIR come into being because of misunderstanding of facts. 6. Having claimed that Section 498(A) of the IPC is not an offending offence under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. and that is why, they are compelled to file the present petition. 7. There is no doubt that in the FIR, there is no allegation of demand of dowry. Therefore, the content of the FIR does not disclose a prima facie case under Section 498(A) of the IPC. As such, in this case, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak on this ground that the FIR No. 03/2018 under Section 498(A) of the IPC dated 02.05.2018 pending investigation before the Officer-in-Charge, Basar Police Station, Arunachal Pradesh stands set aside and quashed. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of.