Page No.# 1/ vs Rani Kumari
2025 Latest Caselaw 3524 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs Rani Kumari on 27 February, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                               Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010184342023




                                                         undefined

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

                       Case No. : Crl.Pet./872/2023

         RAJIV PRASAD AND 5 ORS
         S/O LATE JAYNARAYAN PRASAD, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO.
         46, CHAMPRASARI, NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL, SILIGURI, P.O.
         CHAMPASARI, P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR, DIST. DARJEELING, WEST BENGAL-
         734003

         2: SMTI. SANTI DEVI
         W/O LATE JAYNARAYAN PRASAD
         PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 46
          CHAPRASARI
          NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL
          SILIGURI
          P.O. CHAMPASARI
          P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR
          DIST. DARJEELING
         WEST BENGAL
          734003.

         3: SRI ARUN PRASAD
          S/O LATE JAYNARAYAN PRASAD
         PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 46
          CHAPRASARI
          NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL
          SILIGURI
          P.O. CHAMPASARI
          P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR
          DIST. DARJEELING
         WEST BENGAL
          734003.

         4: SMTI. SILPI PRASAD
         W/O ARUN PRASAD
         RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 46
          CHAPRASARI
                                                                      Page No.# 2/10

             NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL
             SILIGURI
             P.O. CHAMPASARI
             P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR
             DIST. DARJEELING
             WEST BENGAL
             734003.

            5: SRI SANJIV PRASAD
             S/O LATE JAYNARAYAN PRASAD
            PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 46
             CHAPRASARI
             NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL
             SILIGURI
             P.O. CHAMPASARI
             P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR
             DIST. DARJEELING
            WEST BENGAL
             734003.

            6: SMTI. RINKU PRASAD
             D/O LATE JAYNARAYAN PRASAD
            PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 46
             CHAPRASARI
             NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL
             SILIGURI
             P.O. CHAMPASARI
             P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR
             DIST. DARJEELING
            WEST BENGAL
             734003

            VERSUS

            RANI KUMARI
            D/O ABADESH PRASAD RAY
            W/O SRI RAJIV PRASAD
            R/O HOUSE NO. 2,
            CHOUDHURY LINE, NEAR GALI KALI MANDIR, BISHNUPUR, GUWAHATI,
            DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM-781016



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MS K BHATTACHARYYA,MR H K
SARMA,MR. A CHETIA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S P ROY, MS P DEY,JYOTISH DAS
                                     Page No.# 3/10




Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/50/2024

RANI KUMARI

D/O ABADESH PRASAD RAY

W/O SRI RAJIV PRASAD

R/O HOUSE NO. 2

CHOUDHURY LINE
NEAR GALI KALI MANDIR
BISHNUPUR
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM-781016.


VERSUS

RAJIV PRASAD AND 5 ORS
S/O LATE JAYNARAYAN PRASAD
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 46
CHAMPRASARI
NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL
SILIGURI
P.O. CHAMPASARI
P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR
DIST. DARJEELING
WEST BENGAL-734003

2:SMTI. SANTI DEVI
W/O LATE JAYNARAYAN PRASAD
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 46
 CHAPRASARI
 NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL
 SILIGURI
 P.O. CHAMPASARI
 P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR
 DIST. DARJEELING
WEST BENGAL
 734003.

3:SRI ARUN PRASAD
                                     Page No.# 4/10

S/O LATE JAYNARAYAN PRASAD
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 46
CHAPRASARI
NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL
SILIGURI
P.O. CHAMPASARI
P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR
DIST. DARJEELING
WEST BENGAL
734003.

4:SMTI. SILPI PRASAD
W/O ARUN PRASAD
RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 46
CHAPRASARI
NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL
SILIGURI
P.O. CHAMPASARI
P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR
DIST. DARJEELING
WEST BENGAL
734003.

5:SRI SANJIV PRASAD
S/O LATE JAYNARAYAN PRASAD
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 46
CHAPRASARI
NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL
SILIGURI
P.O. CHAMPASARI
P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR
DIST. DARJEELING
WEST BENGAL
734003.

6:SMTI. RINKU PRASAD
D/O LATE JAYNARAYAN PRASAD
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 46
CHAPRASARI
NEAR GURU VIDHYAMANDIR SCHOOL
SILIGURI
P.O. CHAMPASARI
P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR
DIST. DARJEELING
WEST BENGAL
734003.
------------

Advocate for : MR. S P ROY Page No.# 5/10

Advocate for : MR G N SAHEWALLA appearing for RAJIV PRASAD AND 5 ORS

:: PRESENT ::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Petitioners : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate.

                  For the Respondent         :          Mr. S.P. Roy,
                                                        Advocate.

                  Date of Hearing            :          16.09.2024.
                  Date of Judgment           :          27.02.2025.


                          JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel representing the sole respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the

criminal proceedings of Misc (DV) Case No.91 M/2023 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, Assam.

3. The respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the present petitioners.

4. The date of marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was fixed

on 08.06.2022. Before that, some other ceremonies were solemnised. On 5 th December, 2021, the Rasom Ceremony was performed. Thereafter, on 03.03.2022, Ring Ceremony was performed. For performance of this Ring Ceremony, the family of the respondent had to spend about ₹2,50,000/-.

5. After the Ring Ceremony, the petitioners reportedly demanded a dowry of ₹1,25,000/-. Accordingly, the respondent paid the said amount to the first petitioner in Page No.# 6/10

two instalments. The dates on which the money was paid, are 23.03.2022 and 26.03.2022. The money were paid by Google Pay.

6. In the meantime, the date of marriage was also fixed on 8 th June, 2022. Invitation Letters were also printed.

7. In the morning hours of 8th June, 2022, the first petitioner was arrested by police on a complaint made by Smti. Rini Kumari Ram. The respondent and her family got the information immediately. Therefore, they approached the family of the first petitioner and informed about their intention to cancel the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent. They also demanded return of ₹1,25,000/-.

8. The family of the first petitioner requested the family of the respondent not to cancel the future marriage. The family of the first petitioner alleged that the arrest of the first petitioner was because of misunderstanding of facts.

9. After some time, the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 01.07.2022. They started to live together as husband and wife.

10. The respondent claims that after marriage with the first petitioner, he along with his family took custody of all her valuable ornaments.

11. On one occasion, the first petitioner informed the respondent that he was going to Assam for some official work. He wanted to take the respondent with him. Accordingly, on 09.07.2022, the respondent came to Guwahati with the first petitioner. The parents of the respondent have their house at Guwahati. Therefore, the couple stayed there for one night. In the morning of 10.07.2022, the first petitioner told the respondent that he would be going to Upper Assam in connection with his work. Accordingly, he went away. The respondent claims that since 12.07.2022, the first petitioner stopped keeping contact with the respondent.

12. In the month of October, 2022, the respondent and her family members went to Siliguri and visited the house of the first petitioner. At that time, the house of the first Page No.# 7/10

petitioner was under lock and key. The respondent came to know that the family of the first petitioner had gone to Darjeeling.

13. Therefore, the respondent and her family also went to Darjeeling and visited the office of the first petitioner. There, he was not found. Therefore, the respondent and her family returned to Siliguri.

14. This time, the first petitioner called the brother of the respondent and told him that he and his family should not be disturbed. He also allegedly told that if they want the respondent, they may take her back. The first petitioner, in that case, demanded an amount of ₹5,000,00/-.

15. Narrating the aforesaid facts, the respondent filed the petition before the court below seeking appropriate reliefs.

16. The petitioners admitted that the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent took place on 01.07.2022. The married life was not happy. Therefore, the first petitioner and the respondent came to an understanding whereby the first petitioner agreed to pay an amount of ₹8,000,00/- as permanent alimony. They agreed for mutual divorce.

17. It is claimed that during the Ring Ceremony which was held on 03.03.2022, an amount of ₹1,10,000/- was spent by the first petitioner and his family and half of it was returned to the first petitioner.

18. The first petitioner claims that he was arrested by police in a false case being Siliguri Women P.S. Case No.100/2022. On 13.06.2022, he was allowed to go on bail.

19. The first petitioner admitted that he was earlier married to Smti. Rini Kumari Ram and both of them filed a suit being Mat. Suit being 216/2023 for mutual divorce.

20. The first petitioner claimed to be an employee of Life Insurance Company Limited.

21. All other allegations made by the respondent are denied.

Page No.# 8/10

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

23. Regarding the power under Section 482 of the CrPC, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Supreme Court has held 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 Page No.# 9/10

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."

24. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that except denying the allegations brought by the respondent, the petitioners have not made any specific claims..

25. The sole respondent filed the petition under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 with some allegations. The petitioners are to contest the said proceeding and to prove that the respondent had filed a false case against them. Instead of doing so, the petitioners have filed the present application before this Court. The claims made by the respondent are based on evidence. Let her prove the claims before the trial court.

26. Our Parliament has enacted the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with a specific legislative intent. The said intention must be respected. If the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed, the very purpose of enacting the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, would be frustrated. For this reason, this Court is of the opinion that this not a fit case for exercising power under Sections 482 of the CrPC.

27. For the aforesaid premised reasons, the criminal petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

Page No.# 10/10

28. The stay order dated 23.08.2023 passed by this Court staying further

proceedings of Misc (DV) Case No.91M/2023 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, Assam, stands vacated.

29. The connected Interlocutory Application is also disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant