Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Zerifa Jannat on 22 August, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010038542017
2025:GAU-AS:11219
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./728/2017
ABDUR RAKIB ANSARI and ANR.
S/O LATE ABDUR RAFIQUE ANSARI
2: SMT. MONOWARA KHATUN
W/O LATE ABDUR RAFIQUE ANSARI
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-GOURIPUR
WARD NO. 4
P.S.-GAURIPUR
DISTRICT- DHUBRI
ASSA
VERSUS
ZERIFA JANNAT
D/O JAHANUL HOQUE KHANDAKAR, VILLAGE- BHALUKDUBI ULUBARI,
PO-BHALUKDUBI, PIN-783101, PS and DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A BHATTACHARJEE, MR.D J KAPIL,MR.D P BORAH,MR.M
NATH,MR.S S DEY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.H A AHMED, MR. A MOLLAH,MR. M ISLAM,MR.D
BARMAN
Page No.# 2/4
:: PRESENT ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Petitioners : Mr. D.P. Borah,
Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Uddin,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 17.06.2025.
Date of Judgment : 22.08.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. N. Uddin, the learned counsel representing respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying
for quashing the proceedings of C.R. Case No.671/2016 pending in the court of
Munsiff Magistrate No.1, Goalpara.
3. Respondent is the complainant in the C.R. Case No.671/2016. She was married
to the petitioner Abdur Rakib Ansari on 27.08.2012. She started her matrimonial life
in the house of her husband. Her parents gave her furniture, ornaments etc. as
stridhan.
4. After six months of marriage, at the instigation of the second petitioner Smti.
Monowara Khatun (mother-in-law), her husband started to harass her physically and
mentally. Her husband demanded a sum of ₹200,000/-, a car, and other furniture. The
respondent failed to bring those items.
5. On 20.07.2014, the present petitioners again harassed her for want of a car,
furniture and a cash amount of ₹200,000/-.
6. On 10.09.2014, the father of the respondent asked the petitioners to return the
Page No.# 3/4
articles which he gave to his daughter at the time of her marriage. The petitioner
allegedly refused to return those articles. Therefore, on 20.10.2014, the respondent
filed the complaint case being C.R. Case No.1324/2014 in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara. Unfortunately, on 02.07.2016, the said case was
dismissed for default in appearance.
7. Therefore, the present complaint case has been filed praying for recovery of the
stridhan properties.
8. The trial court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Abdur Rakib Ansari. The respondent
prayed for issuing a search warrant to recover the stridhan properties. But the trial
court refused to do so on the ground that there was no immediate danger of any type
of damage to stridhan properties.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
10. On a plain reading of the complaint, I find elements of a prima facie criminal
case against the petitioner Abdur Rakib Ansari. The guidelines for consideration of a
petition under Section 482 of the CrPC have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the
judgment reads 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 channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power 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 entirety 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,
Page No.# 4/4
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except 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 the 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, this Court is of the opinion that there are
elements of a prima facie criminal case against the present petitioner Abdur Rakib
Ansari. The case of the petitioners is not covered by the guidelines laid down in
Bhajan Lal (supra).
12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case
for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the criminal petition
is dismissed. Interim order if there be any, stands vacated.
The Criminal Petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
