Gauhati High Court
Md. Abdul Kadir vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 25 April, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010220942024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1342/2024
MD. ABDUL KADIR
S/O LATE ABDUL HAMID
R/O VILL- LALI PATHAR,
P.O. BECHAMARI
P.S. DHING
DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM
PIN- 782123
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:ARIF AHMED
S/O LATE ABDUL RASHID
R/O VILL- MAIRADHAJ (BECHIMARI)
P.S. DHING
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-78212
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MR. W A SHEIKH,MS F INTAZ
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. A BEGUM (R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Page No.# 2/7
Date : 25.04.2025
Mr. M.A Sheikh, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Ms. A Begum, learned counsel has entered appearance for
respondent No. 2.
Mr. K Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State respondents is present.
This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for
quashing of the proceedings in PR Case No. 394/2024 corresponding to
GR Case No. 340/2024 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate (S), Nagaon in Dhing PS Case No. 26/2024 under
Section 120(B)/420/406/506/384 of IPC and also for quashing the
impugned order dated 21.09.2024 by which charge was framed against
the petitioner under Section 384/506 of IPC.
I have heard Mr. M.A Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
A Begum, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. K Baishya, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondents.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the FIR dated 20.02.2024 and the charge-sheet dated 29.02.2024 are
contradictory to each other, in as much as the FIR dated 20.02.2024 has
stated that the complainant took a loan of Rs 60,000/- on interest from
the petitioner/accused and that the petitioner was harassing him
physically as well as mentally. However, learned counsel states that in the
charge-sheet dated 29.02.2024, the I/O has stated that the complainant
took Rs 60,000/- from the accused person with interest.
The complainant had given back the money to the accused person
along with the interest. However, the accused frightened the complainant
Page No.# 3/7
that he will cause harm to him if his money is not returned. The charge-
sheet also stated that the accused person harassed the complainant by
demanding money at various places. The charge-sheet was laid against
the accused petitioner under Section 120(B)/420/406/506/384 IPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients
of the above charged Sections of the IPC are not present in the instant
case and therefore, the proceedings before the learned Trial Court needs
to be quashed and set aside.
Another contention which the learned counsel for the petitioner has
put forward is that the present case has been registered under wrong
Sections of law, in as much as the present case would be covered by the
Assam Money Lenders Act, 1924 at Section 7-C and to this effect, learned
counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 5 of the IPC
wherein it is stated that “nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of
any special or local laws”. He has, therefore, stated that the proceedings
before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Nagaon is illegal
and without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon notice
being served on the respondent No. 2 in the present petition, the
respondent No. 2 has entered appearance and filed an affidavit. In the
affidavit, at paragraph 4 & 5, the respondent No. 2 has stated that :
“That in the said Criminal Petition the FIR of Dhing PS Case No.
26/2024 was annexed as ANNEXURE NO. 1. I have gone though the said
FIR dated 20.02.2024 and found that somebody signed my name as
‘Ejaharkari’ (informant). The said signature is not mine and I did not file
the said FIR dated 20.02.2024 against the petitioner of said Criminal
Page No.# 4/7Petition/Accused of Dhing P.S Case No. 26/2024.
“That I have no objection if prayer made by the petitioner of said
Criminal Petition is allowed by this Hon’ble Court, as I have no knowledge
who filed the said FIR”.
In view of such statements made by the respondent No. 2 on affidavit, the
learned counsel for the petitioner states that no case remains against the
accused as the informant/complainant has specifically stated that he did
not file the FIR dated 20.02.2024 and that the signature is not his and
somebody else put his signature in the FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to support his
submissions, has relied on the case of Sanjay Sinh Ramarao Chavan v.s.
Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Others (2015) 3 SCC 123, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that unmerited and undeserved
prosecution is an infringement of the guarantee under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel has also relied on the case of Gian
Singh v.s. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2012 10 SCC 303,
where the facts of the case were similar to that of the present case as the
dispute was between husband and wife and the wife was not supporting
the continuation of the criminal proceedings and accordingly, the said
proceedings were quashed by the Court. Similarly, even in the present
case, when the informant/complainant is not supporting the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner, this Court can quash the proceedings
under Section 482 of CrPC. In view of the above submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition may be
allowed and the PR Case No. 394/2024 corresponding to GR Case No.
340/2024 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S),
Page No.# 5/7
Nagaon may be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Ms. A Begum has also
supported the submissions of the petitioner and has also contended that
the respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit stating that the respondent
No. 2 has no objection if the present petition is allowed as he has no
knowledge as to who filed the FIR.
Mr. K Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State respondents has submitted that, prima facie, there are ingredients
of Section 384 & 506 IPC in the present case as the FIR dated 20.02.2024
has clearly stated that the petitioner was harassing the complainant
physically as well as mentally. Even in the statement under Section 161 of
CrPC before the I/O, the complainant had stated that the
petitioner/accused had assaulted him physically and mentally on various
occasions and therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly framed charge
against the accused/petitioner under Section 384 & 506 IPC vide order
dated 21.09.2024. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also
submitted that if the signature in the FIR is stated to be forged, it is a very
serious allegation and therefore, this Court may remand back the matter
to the Trial Court to take up necessary action as deemed fit and proper.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by
the opposing counsels and I have also perused the Trial Court records. It
is a fact that criminal proceedings can be quashed if the complainant
states that they did not lodge the FIR, but it depends on the specific
circumstances of each case. If the complainant admits that the FIR was
lodged under pressure, under coercion or some misunderstanding, the
Court may quash the proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC . Moreover, if
Page No.# 6/7
the complainant’s statements reveals no prima facie case against the
accused, the Court may quash the proceedings. Also in cases where the
complainant and the accused have reached a genuine settlement, the
Court may quash the proceedings, in the interests of justice. This Court’s
primary consideration is whether quashing the proceedings would serve
the interests of justice. In the present case, however, it is seen that the
complainant had never stated before the Trial Court that he did not lodge
the FIR. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had no occasion to deal with
this issue and to pass necessary orders. At this stage, therefore, this Court
is of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the matter is
remanded back to the learned Trial Court without going into the merit of
the case.
Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Court of Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Nagaon. The respondent No.
2/informant shall appear before the learned Trial Court within 2(two)
weeks and apprise the learned Trial Court that he has not filed the FIR
and that somebody has signed his name as the informant. The learned
Trial Court shall accordingly pass necessary orders upon receiving such
information/application in accordance with law.
Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Send back the Trial Court records to the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate (S), with a copy of this order.
Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
JUDGE
Page No.# 7/7
Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link