Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 14 July, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010145722025
2025:GAU-AS:8925
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./797/2025
MEERA DEVI YADAV AND 4 ORS.
W/O SRI RAJESH YADAV
R/O HOUSE NO. 3, KUMARPARA, ATHGAON, P.O. PANBAZAR, P.S.
BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM,PIN-781001.
2: SMT. SHEELA YADAV
W/O SRI B.K. YADAV
R/O HOUSE NO. 3
KUMARPARA ATHGAON
P.O. PANBAZAR
P.S. BHARALUMUKH GUWHAATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-781001.
3: SMT. LEELA YADAV
W/OLATE ARUN KUMAR YADAV
R/O HOUSE NO. 3
KUMARPARA
ATHGAON
P.O. PANBAZAR
P.S. BHARALUMUKH
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781001.
4: SMT. MALA GOWALA YADAV
W/O RAM NARAYAN YADAV
R/O HOUSE NO. 3
KUMARPARA
Page No.# 2/5
ATHGAON
P.O. PANBAZAR
P.S. BHARALUMUKH
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-781001.
5: SRI AJIT KUMAR TALUKDAR
SON OF LATE SONARAM TALUKDAR
R/O TETELIA
NEAR N.H. 37
P.O. MALIGAON
ASSAM
P.S. JALUKBARI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-781011
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S N TAMULI, MS. N DAS,MR. S HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
14.07.2025
Heard Mr. S.N. Tamuli, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the
State.
Page No.# 3/5
2. This a joint application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for
quashing the FIRs in respect of Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.1001/2018 and
Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.1010/2018.
3. On 09.12.2018, the petitioner Ajit Kr. Talukdar had lodged an FIR against the
petitioners Meera Devi Yadav, Mala Gowala Yadav, Sheela Yadav and Leela Yadav
wherein it was stated that the aforesaid four petitioners entered into an agreement
with him on 16.03.2016 to sell a flat space of 700 sqft. and for that purpose, the
petitioner Ajit Kr. Talukdar had paid an advance amount of ₹5,00,000/-. Thereafter, the
said four petitioners stopped receiving calls of Ajit Kr.Talukdar. The petitioner Ajit
Kr.Talukdar felt cheated because the flat space was not handed over to him in spite of
payment of ₹5,00,000/-. Police registered the case being Bharalumukh P.S. Case
No.1001/2018.
4. Thereafter, on 17.12.2018, the aforesaid four petitioners jointly lodged an FIR
stating that they are the owners of a plot of land left behind by their father. Those
petitioners engaged two lawyers namely, Pranjit Singha Lahkar and Sri Prag Moni
Deka to have their names mutated in the land records in respect of the said land. In
the meantime, 10 years had gone by, but mutation of the said petitioners were not
done.
5. On 15.12.2018, Bharalumukh police station summoned the said four ladies to the
police station. When they reached the police station, they came to know that the
petitioner Ajit Kr.Talukdar had lodged the aforementioned FIR dated 09.12.2018. The
ladies also came to know that the petitioner Ajit Kr.Talukdar is the father-in- law of the
said lawyer Pranjit Singha Lahkar.
6. The ladies stated that they never entered into an agreement with Ajit Kr.Talukdar
to sell any flat space. They claimed that the said lawyer Mr. Lahkar had taken many
signatures from the ladies and also took an amount of ₹4.5 lakhs till the date of filing
of the said FIR by the ladies. They went to meet the lawyer Pranjit Singha Lahkar and
Page No.# 4/5
then they threatened the said ladies and asked to hand over the said flat space to Ajit
Kr.Talukdar. Police registered the case being Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.1010/2018.
7. Now, Ajit Kr. Talukdar and the four ladies have come together to this Court to file
the present petition praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of both the cases.
They have claimed that their disputes are civil in nature and are private disputes. They
have compromised their disputes and also claimed that there is no possibility of
conviction in these cases in future.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
9. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (now
Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 ) has 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
Page No.# 5/5
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."
10. Reverting to the case in hand, I find that under the given circumstances of the
case, there is no possibility of future conviction in this case. So, allowing the criminal
proceeding to continue before the trail court would be nothing but an abuse of the
process of the court.
11. This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising power under
Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The criminal petition is allowed.
12. Accordingly, the FIRs in respect of Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.1001/2018 and
Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.1010/2018, are quashed and set aside.
The Criminal Petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
