Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Zerifa Jannat on 22 August, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010012912017
2025:GAU-AS:11217
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./128/2017
ABDUR RAKIB ANSARI and 3 ORS.
S/O- LT. ABDUR RAFIQUE ANSARI
2: MONOWARA KHATUN
W/O- LT. ABDUR RAFIQUE ANSARI
3: ABDUL RAFIQ ANSARI
S/O- LT. ABDUR RAFIQUE ANSARI
4: ABDUL MAKADIM ANSARI
S/O- LT. ABDUR RAFIQUE ANSARI
ALL ARE R/O VILL.- GOURIPUR
WARD NO. 4
P.S.- GAURIPUR
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
VERSUS
ZERIFA JANNAT
D/O- JAHANUL HOQUE KHANDAKAR, VILL.- BHALUKDUBI ULUBARI,
P.O.- BHALUKDUBI, PIN- 783101, P.S. and DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D J KAPIL, MR. M ISLAM,MR.M NATH,MR.S S DEY,MR.A
BHATTACHARJEE,MR.D P BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S P CHITTAWAT, MR. A F N U MOLLAH,MR. N UDDIN,MR.J
A AHMED
Page No.# 2/4
:: PRESENT ::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Borah,
Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Uddin,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 17.06.2025.
Date of Judgment : 22.08.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. N. Uddin, the learned counsel representing the respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
challenging the criminal proceedings of C.R. Case No.654/2016 pending in the court of
learned Munsiff No.2-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Goalpara, Assam.
3. The sole respondent is the complainant in C.R. Case No.654/2016. She claimed
that she was married to Abdur Rakib Ansari on 27.08.2012. She took with her the
Stridhan properties. After about six months of marriage, her husband was instigated
by other petitioners and accordingly her husband demanded a car, furniture and a
cash amount of ₹200,000/- from her. She failed to bring those items. For the aforesaid
articles, her husband and relatives, started to harass her physically and mentally. The
trial court took cognizance of the offences under Section 498A and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code against the present petitioners.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
5. On a plain reading of the complaint, I find that there are elements of a prima
facie criminal case against the petitioners. The guidelines for consideration of a
Page No.# 3/4
petition under Section 482 of the CrPC have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the
judgment reads as under:
“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.
(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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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.
(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.
(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.
(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.”
6. This Court is of the opinion that there are elements of a prima facie criminal case
Page No.# 4/4
against the present petitioners. The case of the petitioners is not covered by the
guidelines laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra).
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for
exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the criminal petition is
dismissed. Interim order if there be any, shall stand vacated.
The Criminal Petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant