Bidyut Tamuli vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3342 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010109082020




                               THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : Crl.Pet./406/2020

            BIDYUT TAMULI
            S/O HAMESWAR TAMULI,
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAMARGAON FALFALI, PS BISWANATH
            CHARIALI, DIST BISWANATH ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
            REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

            2:SMTI BULU BORAH
             D/O LATE PADURAM BORAH
             RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOCHGAON KAMARGAON
             PS BISWANATH CHARIALI
             DIST BISWANATH ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner    : MR D SARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

Date : 05-09-2022

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (C.A.V.) Page No.# 2/6

Heard Mr. Z. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bidyut Sarma, learned Addl. PP for the State and Mr. J. Roy, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. The petitioner, who is the named accused in Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No. 91/2020 under sections 120B/420/468/471/ 406/506 IPC, arising out of FIR dated 13.03.2020, has filed this criminal petition under 482 CrPC for quashing of the said FIR dated 13.03.2020. The respondent no. 2 is the informant in the said FIR.

3. In brief, in the FIR it was stated inter alia to the effect that on the death of her father, the names of his legal heirs was mutated in respect of a plot of land, which was acquired for construction of four-lane highway and compensation amount was transferred to their account and that the petitioner who was known to the informant, who knew about the second installment of compensation, by taking advantage of their simplicity executed a deed of agreement for sale of the plot of land and got a sum of Rs.51,04,800/- transferred into his account although there was no transfer or sale of the land.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that by virtue of a mutual agreement it was agreed that the petitioner would receive 60% share of compensation and the respondent no. 2 would be entitled to 40% of compensation and accordingly the due share of the petitioner was transferred. Hence, no criminal offence was made out and therefore, the FIR was liable to be quashed.

5. The said contention is refuted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 by submitting that as there was no transfer of any right, Page No.# 3/6

title, interest or possession of any part of the suit land, there was no requirement of sharing land acquisition compensation, as such the petitioner had forced the respondent no. 2 to sign a cheque and thereby encashed a sum of Rs.51,04,800/- out of the total compensation amount of Rs.85,00,000/-.

6. In this regard, the submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 was that the four prospective sellers, who are all females, as well as the petitioner very well know that 5 bigha of their land is under acquisition by the Government which would fetch the sellers Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees eighty five lakh only). Yet defying any logic, the prospective sellers including respondent no.2, would sell the balance remaining land (admeasuring about 3 bigha- 1 katha- 16 lessa) at Rs.4,55,000/-, and at the same time put the petitioner into possession of 8 bigha- 1 katha- 16 lessa land, and then share land acquisition compensation at the ratio of 60:40 and moreover, pay a sum of Rs.51,04,800/- (Rupees Fifty one lakh four thousand eight hundred only) to the petitioner. Accordingly, it was submitted that the sequence of events gives credence to the contents of the FIR.

7. Hence, it is submitted that no case was made out for quashing of the FIR. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 had referred to the following cases, viz., (i) State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Akhil Sharda, Crl.Appeal No. 840/2022 decided by Supreme Court of India on 11.07.2022, and (ii) Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., SLP (Crl.) 2953/2022, decided by Supreme Court of India on 20.04.2022.

8. Perused the scanned copy of the case diary, which had been called for by virtue of order dated 17.03.2022.

Page No.# 4/6

9. It is seen that in the agreement for sale dated 28.04.2016, between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 and 3 (three) others, at a sale consideration of Rs.4,55,000/- (Rupees Four lakh fifty five thousand only), the petitioner had agreed to purchase the land remaining in the hand of the respondent no.2 and three others (i.e. sellers), after acquisition of their land by the Government for four-lane highway and paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the sellers. However, in the mutual agreement dated 29.03.2018, between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 and three others (sellers), it was mentioned that the Government had acquired 5 bigha land of the said sellers, and it was further mentioned therein that the petitioner was the occupier of the said land and therefore, share of compensation of the petitioner was 60% and that of the respondent no.2 and three other sellers was agreed to be at 40%.

10. In the mutual agreement dated 29.03.2018, for sharing compensation at the rate of 60% (for petitioner) and 40% (for sellers), it has been mentioned that the sellers had already sold 8 bigha- 1 katha- 16 lessa land to the petitioner and that the petitioner was in possession of the said land, out of which 5 bigha land was acquired by the Government. However, in the agreement for sale dated 28.04.2016, the petitioner had agreed to purchase only that part of the land which remained after the land acquisition made by the Government. In the said agreement, it has not been mentioned that the petitioner was put in possession of the entire land-holding of the sellers (i.e. respondent no.2 and three others). Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 appears to be right in submitting that it defies any logic why the sellers would voluntarily agree to part with compensation in respect of Page No.# 5/6

land for which there was no agreement for sale and never proposed to be sold. Moreso, when both the parties to the agreement are aware that the Government had already proposed to acquire land for four-lane highway and the respondent no.2 was aware that she along with other three sellers would be getting a compensation to the extent of Rs.85,00,000/-.

11. In view of above discussions, the Court is unable to agree to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the FIR is read as a whole no criminal offence has been made out. The sequence in which the two agreements are shown to have been executed supports the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2. Therefore, the first principle laid down in para 102 of the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , is not attracted in this case in hand.

12. In the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Supreme Court of India had held that inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the CrPC has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.

13. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Gourishetty Mahesh, (2010) 6 SCC 588 , the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the CRPC would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable or not or whether there is reasonable possibility that the accusation would not be sustained. Thus, it appears that the cases cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner help the respondent no.2.

Page No.# 6/6

14. Accordingly, in view of the discussions above, the objection against this petition is sustained. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.

15. Before parting with the records, it is clarified that the observations made in this order is not intended to be construed as an observation touching upon the merit of the case. Hence, none of the sides would be prejudiced in course of trial, if any.

16. The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order to the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Biswanath Chariali to make it a part of GR Case No. 192/2020, arising out of Biswanath Chariali PS Case No. 91/2020.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant