Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 22 November, 2024
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010131472013
2024:GAU-AS:11414
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./810/2013
MD. ASLAM KHAN and 17 ORS
S/O LT. RAFIQUE KHAN
2: MD IMTIAZ KHAN
S/O LT. RAFIQUE KHAN
3: IMRAN KHAN
S/O ISTIYAK KHAN
4: SIRAJ KHAN
S/O ABDUL MUNAF KHAN PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE R/O MANIK
HAZARIKA ROAD
TINSUKIA.
5: MD NASIR KHAN
S/O LT. MASTER KHAN R/O JYOTI PD. AGARWALA ROAD
TINSUKIA.
6: MD KANJU
S/O MD ISLAM
7: MD IMRAN
S/O MD ISLAM
8: MD ISHMILE
S/O MD ISLAM PETITIONERS 6 TO 8 ARE R/O LAL BANGLA ROAD
TINSUKIA.
9: MD MANSUR
S/O UNKNOWN R/O BENG PUKHURI
TINSUKIA.
10: MD SAHADULLA BHOLA
S/O LT. SANAULLAH STATION ROAD
Page No.# 2/6
TINSUKIA.
11: BABU
S/O LT. ABDUL AZIZ WORKER OF MUNICIPAL BOARD
TINSUKIA.
12: MD GYASUDDIN
S/O ABDUL AZIZ BABU PATTY TINSUKIA.
13: MD SARIF
S/O LT. ABDUL SATTAR NEAR LAL BANGLA MASZID
TINSUKIA.
14: MD RAFIQUE
S/O LT. ABDUL SATTAR NEAR LAL BANGLA MASZID
TINSUKIA.
15: MD ABDUL
S/O MD ISLAM LAL BANGLA
TINSUKIA.
16: MD RASID
S/O LT. PAJU KHALIFA AZAM PIR COLONY T S K.
17: MUBSIR HUSSAIN
S/O ANWAR HUSSAIN TINSUKIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
18: PALTU
S/O UNKNOWN. TULSI RAM ROAD
TINSUKIA.
19: ABDUL RAHMAN @ MUZIBUR RAHMAN
S/O UNKNOWN BABU PATTY ROAD
TINSUKIA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
2:MOFIZUL HAQUE
S/O LT. DIL MOHAMMED R/O TULSIRAM ROAD NEAR LAL BUNGLOW
MASJID P.O. and P.S. TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N Z AHMED, MR.S K SAHARIA,DR.B U AHMED,MR.J B
SAIKIA
Page No.# 3/6
Advocate for the Respondent : , MR.R S MISHRA,MR.A K GUPTA,PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 22-11-2024
1. None appears for the petitioner on call. Accordingly, this
court has requested Mr. D Talukdar, learned counsel to assist this
court as an Amicus Curiae.
2. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel has gone through the records
and assisted this court.
3. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C is filed
against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2013, passed in Criminal
Revision No.43(3)/2010 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)
No.2, Tinsukia.
4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present case are
summarized as under.
I. An FIR was registered by the respondent No.2
i.e Mofizul Hoque before the Officer In Charge, Tinsukia
Police station against the petitioners which was registered
as Tinsukia PS Case No.534/2005 dated 14.10.2005 under
sections 143/448/427/380/323 IPC.
II. After completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted final report in the form of
Closure Report. Notices were issued to the respondent
No.2 and accordingly the respondent No.2 filed his Narazi
Page No.# 4/6
petition dated 23.11.2006 in GR Case No.952/2005 before
the learned CJM, Tinsukia.
III. On receipt of such Narazi petition, the matter was
transferred to the court of JMFC, Tinsukia who in turn by
order dated 30.11.2006 issued notice to the informant for
appearance.
IV. On 16.03.2006, the informant appeared along
with four witnesses and they were examined under
sections 200/202 Cr.P.C and cognizance of offence under
sections 448/427/323/380 IPC was taken.
V. While the matter was proceeding, the
complainant/respondent No.2 filed an application on
22.10.2009 before the learned JMFC, Tinsukia seeking to
lead additional evidence with a list of witnesses and list of
documents, which the complainant proposed to rely on.
VI. Such application was rejected by the learned
JMFC, Tinsukia by its order dated 01.07.2010 inter alia on
the ground that the complaint did not file the names of
the proposed witnesses and were not examined by the
court upon an enquiry conducted under section 202 Cr.P.C.
VII. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.2 approached
the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No.2,
Tinsukia against such order dated 01.07.2010. The
learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the parties had
allowed such revision petition, thus allowing the
respondent No.2 to adduce additional witnesses as well as
Page No.# 5/6
to adduce documentary evidence.
5. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge while reversing the
decision of the learned JMFC, Tinsukia held that the learned JMFC
has failed to exercise its power under section 244(2) and section 246
Cr.P.C, inasmuch as it was held that it was an appropriate case to
exercise such power.
6. It was further opined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
that it is quite possible that sometimes when the complainant fails to
substantiate the allegation, he may resort to dilatory tactics and
thereby harass the accused by giving supplementary list of witnesses
to prolong the continuance of the case, however, present is not such
a case and accordingly, the petition was allowed. The learned
Sessions Judge also placed reliance on the determination made by
the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of State of Bombay Vs.
Janardhan (AIR 1960 Bombay 513), and opined that section 244
Cr.P.C and section 246 Cr.P.C should not have any limitation so far the
same relates to examination of witnesses as long as the same is
required for ends of justice.
7. This court after perusal of the materials available on record
is of the view that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not
committed any patent defect or any error of jurisdiction or of law,
inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge has passed an appropriate
order, which is reasonable and which was passed for ends of justice.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this court finds no merits in this
criminal petition and same stands closed.
9. While parting with the record, this court appreciates the
Page No.# 6/6
assistance rendered by Mr. D Talukdar, learned counsel as Amicus
Curiae. Accordingly registry shall ensure that Mr. D Talukdar, learned
counsel be paid the legal fee, as payable to a Legal Aid Counsel as
per the norms fixed by the Legal Services Authority.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
