Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 3 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010031602021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./110/2021
SMT. MARY DAS AND ANR
W/O PRANAB KUMAR SHARMA, D/O LATE SATISH DAS, R/O M.G. ROAD,
UZANBAZAR, HOUSE NO. 41, P.S.-LATASIL, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, P/R/A
PALM ENCLAVE, BELTOLA, P.O.-BELTOLA, P.S.-HATIGAON, GUWAHATI-28,
DIST-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
2: PRANAB KUMAR SHARMA
S/O LATE KABINDRA NATH SHARMA
R/O PALM ENCLAVE
BELTOLA
P.O.-BELTOLA
P.S.-HATIGAON
GUWAHATI-28
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 03-03-2021
Heard the learned counsel, Mr. A. K. Bhuyan appearing for the
petitioners. Also heard, Mr. P. J. Dutta, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State of
Assam.
2. This is joint petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 of the Cr.P.C., praying for quashing the F.I.R. being Hatigaon
P.S. Case No. 659/2020, under Sections 294/498(A) of the IPC, read with
Sections 3(c) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. It may be stated that the petitioners herein, are wife and husband. The
wife and the husband belong to different castes. Admittedly, the wife hails from
scheduled caste.
4. On one occasion during telephonic conversation between them, the
husband rebuked his wife by saying that she should not talk like a "dumuni".
The wife lodged one F.I.R. against her husband by alleging that her husband
humiliated her for being a member of a lower caste. She further alleged that her
family members were not allowed to visit her matrimonial house because they
belonged to a lower caste.
5. The wife finally alleged that her husband had taken her nude photograph
and similar videos without her knowledge and those matters were stored in his
laptop.
6. By filing the present application, both the petitioners have jointly
submitted that they have settled their dispute and they are no longer interested
in prosecuting the case. They have stated that they are happily living together
as husband and wife and therefore, the case registered on the basis of her
Page No.# 3/4
F.I.R., deserves to be quashed.
7. Mr. Bhuyan has submitted that there is no possibility of future conviction
of the husband because no such case under Sections 3(c) of the Schedule
Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been made
out here. According to Mr. Bhuyan, the basic ingredient of the said offence is
that the words must be uttered in any place within public view. Mr. Bhuyan
submitted that the husband uttered the said word only in telephonic
conversation.
8. Mr. Bhuyan further relied upon the judgment rendered in the State of
Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688,
where the Supreme Court has held that matrimonial disputes can be quashed
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr.
Bhuyan as well as Mr. Dutta.
10. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to prevent abuse of process
of the Court and to advance the cause of justice. In the case of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supple. 1 SCC 335, the Apex Court, in
Paragraph No. 102, has held, 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 channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powers 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
entirely 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,
Page No.# 4/4
justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
expert 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
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."
11. Reverting to the case in hand, I have found that in the instant case, the
parties have compromised the matter and have been happily living together. I
find that there is no possibility of a conviction in the case, so allowing the
proceeding to proceed further would be nothing but an abuse of the process of
the Court. I find that this is a fit case for exercising the power under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C.
12. The Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 659/2020, under Sections 294/498(A) of the
IPC, read with Sections 3(c) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby quashed.
13. Accordingly, the instant criminal petition is allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
