Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 25 November, 2024
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010194092016
2024:GAU-AS:11524
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./55/2016
MANOJ KUMAR DAS @ RANOJ DAS and ANR.
S/O MAYA RAM DAS JAMARTAL, MIRZ, KAMURP RURAL, P.S.
PALASHBARI, PIN - 781125, ASSAM.
2: SRI SANJAY KUMAR DUTTA @ SANJOY KUMAR DUTTA.
S/O MURARI MOHAN DUTTA 2B
ANUSUYA AKASH APARTMENT
NH-37 LANKESWAR
GUWAHATI-14
P.S. JALUKBARI
KAMRUP
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
2:DR. TARINI KR. DUTTA
PROFESSOR OF GAUHATI UNIVERSITY MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
JALUKBARI
GUWAHATI P.S. JALUKBARI
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M GOSWAMI, MR.S BHARALI,MR.B M
CHOUDHURY,MR.N K NEOG,MR.M DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : MRV K BAROOAHR-2, PP, ASSAM,,,MR.K K DEY(R-2)
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
25.11.2024
1. Heard Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. K. K. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. B.
Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed for quashing the proceedings of G.R. Case No.
7702/2010 under Section 500/34 of IPC pending in the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. The further
challenge is an order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in the aforesaid G.R.
Case whereby, the charges under Section 500/34 of IPC has been framed
against the accused petitioner.
3. The prosecution was launched by the respondent No. 2 by filing an FIR,
which is quoted herein below:-
"To, Dated: 28.09.2010.
The Special Superintendent of Police,
CID, Ulubari, Guwahati, Assam.
Sub: F.I.R. against a cyber crime.
Sir,
With due respect and humble submissions I beg to state the
following few lines for your kind perusal and needful action.
Page No.# 3/5
That Sir, last few days one Mr. Ranoj Das is posting emails to my
employer, persons in different administrative capacity where I work and my
departmental colleagues alleging something derogatory against me.
I am in full doubt in the real existence of this Mr. Das, I doubt it to be
the handy work of one sadist non-teaching staff member of the Gauhati
University where I work as a Professor in the department of Mathematics. By his
misdeeds he has not only blamed me but has given a bad reputation to the
whole teaching community of the University.
In support of my doubt I have enclosed tow letters along with this
application, one written by the said person in his name to someone in the
University and the other one the email of Mr. Ranoj Das whose real existence is
in doubt.
See the word by word and line by line similarity in the complain of
both of them. I have provided the letters so that it might give you some clue to
trap the culprit during the process of investigation. Further, I have not
mentioned the names for the sake of your investigation.
Sir, looking all the seriousness of the crime, I think you will given
priority to the process of investigation and let me know your findings when the
investigation is complete to help me take legal action against the culprit.
Yours faithfully
(Dr Tarini Kumar Dutta)
Professor Dept. of Mathematics,
Gauhati University".
4. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the CID PS Case No. 52/2010 under
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was registered.
Subsequently, after completion of the investigation charge sheet being CS
No. 27 dated 31.12.2011 under Section 66A of Information Technology Act,
Page No.# 4/5
2000 was filed by the Investigating Officer.
5. Thereafter, processes were issued. The petitioners appeared before the
learned Magistrate and filed a petition which was registered as Petition
No.376 dated 30.04.2016 inter alia raising a plea that the investigating
officer submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons under
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 though the Hon'ble
Apex Court in its judgment dated 24.03.2015 had struck down the Section
66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Shreya Singhal -Vs-
Union of India & ors reported in 2015 (5) SCC 1.
6. Accordingly, though no cognizance under Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 was taken, however, the learned Magistrate went
ahead and considering the material available on record, the accused were
charged under Section 500/34 of IPC. Being aggrieved, the present petition
is filed.
7. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the material available
on record.
8. Section 500/499 of IPC relates to an offence for defamation and said
offence is enumerated under Chapter-XXI of the IPC.
9. Section 199 of Cr.P.C. mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of
offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the IPC except upon a complaint
made by some person aggrieved by the offence.
10. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the Magistrate could not have framed
charges for commission of the offences under Section 500/34 of IPC on the
basis of a charge sheet filed under section 173 of Cr.P.C.
Page No.# 5/5
11. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the view that the order dated
17.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kamrup (M) at Guwahati is an order which can be termed as patently
defective order inasmuch as the learned court below has exceeded his
jurisdiction while framing charges under Section 500 of IPC in complete
derogation of the provision of 199 of Cr.P.C.
12. Accordingly, the present criminal petition stands allowed by setting aside
and quashing the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 7702/2010 under Section
500/34 of IPC pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and the order dated 17.12.2015
passed in the aforesaid G.R. Case whereby, the charges under Section
500/34 of IPC has been framed against the accused petitioner.
13. Accordingly, this criminal petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
