Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam on 22 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010181032011
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./172/2011
SOFIQUR RAHMAN and ANR
S/O ABDUL HUSSAIN R/O VILL- PADUPARA, P.S. DHUPDHARA, P.O.
AMBARI, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783123
2: MD ABDUL KALAM
S/O LT. SUBUDDIN
R/O VILL- CHELABARI
P.S. DHUPDHARA
P.O. AMBARI
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM. PIN- 78312
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N GOGOI, MR. K M HASSAN,MS. S NAZNEEN,MR.P
SHARMA,MR.M AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ,
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
22-01-2025
1. Heard Mr. K.M.Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.K.Das, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the sole respondent.
2. The present criminal revision petition is filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and order dated 24.05.2010 passed in
G.R. Case No. 131/2006 whereby the present petitioners/accused were convicted under
Sections 420/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six)
months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 (two) months each. Though such decision was
challenged by the petitioners/accused in Case No. C.A. 9/2010, however, the said appeal
was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated
18.03.2011.
3. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that the petitioners/accused asked the
informant to come to the residence of the petitioner No.1 with a promise that they would
hand over a Hanuman Brand coin to the informant for which an amount of Rs. 1,50,678/-
was paid to them.
4. It is further alleged that the petitioners/accused promised that once the aforesaid
amount of Rs. 1,50,678/- was paid to them through their spiritual power and through the
Hanuman Brand coin, the aforesaid money could be doubled. However, on such promise,
though an amount of Rs. 1,50,678/- was paid to them, the accused/petitioners could not
double the amount, rather they fled away.
5. During the course of arguments, this Court expressed a prima facie opinion that the
concurrent findings of the learned Courts below cannot be stated to be perverse or
Page No.# 3/3
vitiated by patent illegality to reverse the same in exercise of revisional power. At this
stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the matter involves financial
transaction, the accused/petitioners are still willing to return the money to the
victim/informant.
6. In view of the aforesaid and considering the matter in its entirety, this Court may
interfere with the decision exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC inasmuch
as the nature of offence is not so heinous and the payment of money can be treated as a
compromise settlement between the parties.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the
petitioners may be permitted to deposit the amount of 1,50,678/- before the Registry of
this Court as their gestures.
8. Accordingly, considering the matter in its entirety, the prayer of the
petitioners/accused stands allowed and they are permitted to deposit the money
amounting to Rs. 1,50,678/- before the Registry of this Court within a period of 2 (two)
weeks from today.
9. List this matter on 17.02.2025 for further consideration.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
