Page No.# 1/5 vs Tandrali Nayak
2025 Latest Caselaw 4789 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs Tandrali Nayak on 22 August, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                                 Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010137432023




                                                                           2025:GAU-AS:11220

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

                               Case No. : Crl.Pet./615/2023

            KULENDRA KUMAR NATH AND ANR
            S/O LT. SUKHDEV NATH ADDRESS- TINGRAI BANGALI GAON P.O. AND P.S.
            MAKUM DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786170

            2: SUSMA CHETRI NATH
            W/O KULENDRA KUMAR NATH ADDRESS- TINGRAI BANGALI GAON P.O.
            AND P.S. MAKUM DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 78617

            VERSUS

            TANDRALI NAYAK
            W/O LT. MANJIT NATH ADDRESS FLAT NO. L 301 2ND FLOOR ARUNDOI
            APARTMENT LALITA BLOCK BASISTHA PUR BY LANE NO. 3 P.O. AND P.S.
            DISPUR GUWAHATI 28 DIS. KAMRUP M ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S CHAMARIA, MR A N SARMAH,MR. D DAS,MR M M
ZAMAN

Advocate for the Respondent : MR S K AGARWAL,

:: PRESENT ::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Petitioners : Mr. S. Chamaria, Advocate.

                    For the Respondents:                      Mr. A. Tiwari,
                                                              Advocate.
                                                                           Page No.# 2/5

                  Date of Hearing  :                   17.06.2025.
                  Date of Judgment :                   22.08.2025.


                          JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Tiwari, the counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying

for quashing the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st

Class No.4, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in C.R. Case No.3845c/2022.

3. The respondent being the complainant filed the complaint case against the petitioners. She was in love with late Manjeet Nath and on 06.12.2013, their marriage was registered in the office of the Marriage Officer, Kamrup (M), Assam. On 13.12.2013, the social marriage was also solemnized at Guwahati. It may be mentioned that the petitioner Kulendra Kumar Nath is the father of late Manjeet Nath.

4. After the marriage, the respondent started her matrimonial life with her husband in the house of Kulendra Kumar Nath. While going to the matrimonial house, the respondent took with her the stridhan properties. She handed over the stridhan properties to Kulendra Kumar Nath and his wife.

5. It was after the marriage, the respondent came to know that her husband late Manjeet Nath was suffering from diabetes. She has alleged that he started to show hostility towards her. According to the respondent, her husband was also addicted to alcohol. Under the influence of alcohol, he used to pick up quarrel with her on petty issues.

6. The respondent continued to tolerate the hostility shown to her by her husband. On 18.07.2018, late Manjeet Nath assaulted the respondent and on that day, he threw her out of the house. The respondent returned to the house of her parents leaving behind her stridhan properties in the house of her husband.

Page No.# 3/5

7. The respondent had a joint account with her husband Manjeet Nath in the ICICI Bank, Bhangagarh Branch and had a locker there.

8. Thereafter, the respondent filed a divorce petition in the family Court, Kamrup(M) being F.C. (Civil) No.322/2019. Thereafter, her husband Manjeet Nath expired on 09.03.2021 and therefore, the respondent had withdrawn the aforesaid case.

9. The stridhan properties of the respondent were still in the house of the present petitioner Kulendra Kumar Nath. On 02.05.2022, the respondent along with her mother went to the house of Kulendra Kumar Nath and asked for return of the stridhan properties. But Kulendra Kumar Nath and the other petitioner Smti. Shushma Chetri had misbehaved with the respondent and her mother. They refused to hand over the stridhan properties.

10. Narrating the aforesaid facts, the complaint case was filed by the respondent.

11. On 09.06.2022, the trial court examined the respondent under Section 200 of the CrPC and took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against Kulendra Kumar Nath and Smti. Shushma Chetri.

12. The respondent took a plea before the trial court stating that her gold ornaments were kept in the locker of ICICI Bank, Bhangagarh and the locker was jointly operated by her and husband. Since her husband had already expired, the other key of the locker was with Kulendra Kumar Nath and he refused to hand over the keys to the respondent.

13. After hearing both sides, the trial court directed issue of a search warrant for recovery of the said key of the locker from the possession of Kulendra Kumar Nath.

14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

15. An estranged wife has filed a complaint case praying for recovery of her stridhan properties from the house of her father-in-law. She had a joint account and a locker in a Bank where she had kept her gold ornaments. The account was jointly operated by Page No.# 4/5

her and her husband. Her husband is no more and the key of the locker is with Kulendra Kumar Nath, the father of the deceased husband. He is not handing over the key, nor is he returning the stridhan properties to the wife of his son.

16. Under the given circumstances, I find a prima facie criminal case to go for trial against the present petitioners.

17. 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, 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 Page No.# 5/5

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."

18. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that there are elements of a prima facie case under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. The case of the petitioners is not covered by the guidelines laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra).

19. This is not a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. The earlier interim order stands vacated.

The Criminal Petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant