Bhabananda Pathak vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 4050 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Bhabananda Pathak vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 12 March, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                     Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010049642025




                                                              undefined

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

                               Case No. : Crl.Pet./295/2025

           BHABANANDA PATHAK
           S/O LATE SADANANDA PATHAK, R/O HOUSE NO. 14, KALAPAHAR, MILAN
           PATH, P.O. AND P.S. FATASHIL AMBARI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM



           VERSUS

           THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
           TO BE REP.BY THE PP, ASSAM

           2:DIPANKAR KALITA

            S/O KAMESWAR KALITA

           R/O MAJ JALUKBARI
           P.O. AND P.S. JALUKBARI
           DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
           ASSAM
           PIN- 78101

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR M HUSSAIN,MR. N G
KUNDU,MR. A K AZAD,MR. N HAQUE

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
                                                                            Page No.# 2/4




                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                        ORDER

Date : 12.03.2025

Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

Issue notice.

No formal notice is required to send to respondent No.1 as because Ms. Das has accepted notice.

Extra copy of the petition shall be provided to her.

The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent No.2 by registered post with A/D.

Heard the learned counsel for both sides in the matter of prayer for stay of investigation.

Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner had purchased a plot land from the informant's mother. Thereafter, he purchased the land from his wife. The materials available on record shows that the sale deed by which the petitioner purchased the land was a genuine one.

The present petitioner has already filed the Civil suit against the informant of this Case.

On the other hand, the informant alleged that the sale deed executed by the Page No.# 3/4

wife of the petitioner is a fake one and on the basis of the said fake document, the petitioner has grabbed the land.

Ms. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that while allowing the bail prayer of the petitioner, the Court has held that there are some incriminating materials against the present petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at that time the petitioner had never shown document in support of this Case to Police.

Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court that was delivered in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors. In this Case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that during pendency of quashing petition, the High Court has the power to direct Police to stay investigation of the Case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court that was delivered Mohammad Wajid & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors reported in AIR 2023 SC 3784 paragraph 30 of the said Judgment is quoted above:

At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the Page No.# 4/4

accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings.

The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.

After hearing both the sides, the prayer for interim order made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed.

It is hereby directed that until further Order by this Court, investigation of the Case in respect of Basistha P.S. Case No.739/2023 shall remain stayed.

List this matter after 4(four) weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant