Gauhati High Court

Lakshi Kanta Das vs Smti. Baroda Das And Anr on 18 June, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010182152012

undefined

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

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./139/2012

LAKSHI KANTA DAS
S/O LT. HALIRAM DAS VILL- BHEHBARI, P.O. and P.S. RANGIA, DIST.
KAMRUP, ASSAM,

VERSUS

SMTI. BARODA DAS and ANR.
D/O LT. DEBARAM DAS, VILL- BETAGAON, P.O. and P.S. GORESWAR, DIST.
KAMRUP BTAD, ASSAM,

2:THE STATE OF ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N N KARMAKAR, MR. DIKSHIT GOGOI, AMICUS
CURIAE,MD.S ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.P CHOUDHURY, MR.D TALUKDAR,PP, ASSAM,MR.D DAS

:: PRESENT ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Petitioner : Mr. D. Gogoi,
Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondents : Mr. B. Sarma,
Addl. P.P., Assam.

Mr. D. Talukdar,
Advocate.
Page No.# 2/5

Date of Hearing : 13.05.2025.
Date of Judgment : 18.06.2025.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam (Respondent No.2) as
well as Mr. D. Talukdar, the learned counsel representing the Respondent No.1.

2. This is an application under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code
(CrPC) challenging the judgment and order dated 16.05.2011 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rangia (Kamrup), in Case No.151C /2007 affirmed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Rangia, Kamrup in Criminal Appeal No.37/2011.

3. The petitioner had married the respondent on 14.02.1996. The couple blessed
with a son. For want of dowry, the respondent was physically harassed by the
petitioner. Therefore, she had lodged an FIR before police. The G.R. Case
No.229/2004 came into existence accordingly. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Rangia convicted the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.

4. The respondent had to leave her matrimonial house because of the conduct of
the petitioner and his family members. Thereafter, the petitioner again married Minu
Deka on 22.02.04. Therefore, the respondent filed a complaint case, being Case

No.151C /2007. In this case, the trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 494
and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of two years and was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹2,000/- with default
stipulations.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present revision petition has
been filed.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
Page No.# 3/5

7. In State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
"14. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 CrPC which vests
the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order
made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings.
15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , where scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly
explained as under : (SCC p. 475, paras 12-13)
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine
the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality
and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision
is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-
founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders,
which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in
accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges
that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are
grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding
recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely
indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is
a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt
restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court
has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to
injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the
charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may
be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case
substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much
advanced stage in the proceedings under CrPC."
16. This Court in the aforesaid judgment in Amit Kapoor case [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] has
also laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397
particularly in the context of prayer for quashing of charge framed under Section
228CrPC is sought for as under : ( Amit Kapoor case [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander,
(2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , SCC pp. 482-
83, para 27)
"27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section
397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it
will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts
should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently
impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis
Page No.# 4/5

of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be
considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of
charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code
or together, as the case may be:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the
Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in
invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the
charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as
made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie
establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently
improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the
basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the
evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at
the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
***

27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.

*** 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.

17. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible. The High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge."

8. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that being a revisional court, unlike an appellate court, this Court is not supposed to reappreciate the evidence available in the record. Being a revision court, this Court is of the opinion that no jurisdictional errors have been committed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. Therefore, this revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

Page No.# 5/5

Send back the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant