Gauhati High Court
Firoj Khandakar vs Karabi Begum And Anr on 18 June, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010127662024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./784/2024
FIROJ KHANDAKAR
S/O HASAN KHANDAKAR, R/O VILL- BATHAN, P.S.-BAIHATA CHARIALI,
P.O.-DUMUNICHAWKI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
KARABI BEGUM AND ANR
D/O SYEDUR RAHMAN, VILL- GORIAPARA, P.O.-JALJALI, P.S.-
MONGOLDOI, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B R A SULTANA,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS CURIAE (R-1)
:: PRESENT ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Petitioner : Ms. BRA Sultana,
Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. B. Sarmah,
Addl. P.P., Assam.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. S. Nawaz,
Amicus Curiae.
Page No.# 2/5
Date of Hearing : 13.05.2025.
Date of Judgment : 18.06.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Ms. BRA Sultana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. B. Sarmah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam (Respondent No.2) as
well as Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned Amicus Curiae representing the Respondent No.1.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying
for quashing the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.124/2024 relating to Charge
Sheet No.53/2024 in respect of Baihata P.S. Case No.76/2024.
3. On 07.03.2024, the Respondent No.1, Karabi Begum lodged an FIR before police
alleging that her husband Firoj Khandakar, father-in-law Hasan Ali Khandakar and her
mother-in-law Sayeeda Begum had been physically and mentally harassing her since
her marriage. For that reason, Karabi Begum has been staying in the house of her
father at Mangaldai. Till filing of the FIR, her husband and her family members did not
keep any contact with her.
4. During investigation, it came to light that Karabi Begum did not have a good
relationship with her husband Firoj Khandakar. It also came to light that Firoj
Kahdakar had physically harassed Karabi Begum. Therefore, police filed the charge
sheet against the petitioner Firoj Khandakar alleging commission of offence under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
6. Section 498-A was inserted into the Indian Penal Code by Criminal Law (Second
Amendment) Act of 1983. Chapter XXA was inserted by the Indian Penal Code of 1860
through the provision of Section 498-A, with an object to penalize the husband or the
in-laws who torture or harass the wife or daughter-in-law with the aim of coercing or
forcing her to meet any unlawful demands or to drive her to take away her own life.
Page No.# 3/5
7. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under:
"14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section
498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or
by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a
husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives
to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be
counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for
which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent
power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women
from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860."
8. Coming back to the case in hand, the complainant Karabi Begum never claimed
that her husband or her relatives ever demanded dowry or demanded anything
unlawful from her or her family. She has alleged that her husband physically and
mentally harassed her. This cruel act on the part of Firoj Khandakar is outside the
word "cruelty" as mentioned in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498-A
of the Indian Penal Code was inserted into the Code with a specific legislative intent
and the intention of our legislature must be respected. For physical harassment meted
out to the wife by her husband there may be some other offences. But simple cruelty
to the wife does not amount to an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code.
9. In the instant case, there are no prima facie materials for establishing a case
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
10. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC 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
Page No.# 4/5
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
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."
11. This Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) is
squarely applicable in this case. There is no possibility of conviction in this case. So,
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court.
Therefore, this is a fit case for exercising the inherent power of this Court under
Section 482 of the CrPC. The criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.124/2024 relating
to Charge Sheet No.53/2024 in respect of Baihata P.S. Case No.76/2024, pending in
the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (M), Rangia, is quashed and set aside.
Page No.# 5/5
The criminal petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
