Md. Sirajul Islam vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 4315 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Md. Sirajul Islam vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 21 March, 2025

                                                                  Page No.# 1/16

GAHC010012412016




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

                               Case No. : Crl.Pet./214/2016

            MD. SIRAJUL ISLAM
            S/O MD. AMAN ULLAH PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- PUB SALPARA
            UNDER RUPAHIHAT P.S. IN THE DIST. OF NAGAON, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.

            2:MD. FIROJ AHMED
             S/O LT. HASAN UDDIN AHMED R/O VILL- MADHPUR
             KADAMTOLA UNDER NAGAON SADAR POLICE STATION IN THE DIST. OF
            NAGAON
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.HABIBULLAH, MS.M DUTTA,MR.B M CHOUDHURY,MS.B
CHOUDHURY,MR.U CHOUDHURY,MS.I TERANGPI,MR.S D PURAKAYATHA,MRS.M S
SUNDI

Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,,,,,PP, ASSAM(R1)

                   Date of Hearing & Judgment : 21.03.2025
                                                                        Page No.# 2/16


                                 BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

                           JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. None appears for the respondent No. 2 when the matter is called.

2. Pertinent that by Order dated 13.02.2019, this Court deems service to be completed against the respondent No. 2. However, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No. 2, despite receipt of notice till date.

3. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of the Order dated 30.12.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, FTC, Nagaon (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revisional Court') in C.M No. 13(N)/2015, whereby the Criminal Revision Petiton filed under Section 397/399 of Cr.PC against the Order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the learned SDJM, Sadar, Nagaon (hereinafter referred to as the 'Magistrate Court') in C.R. Case No. 1052/2014, whereby the Magistrate Court was pleased to decline issuance of process against the accused person under Section 500 of IPC.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, who is a Govt. Servant working as L.D.Assistant in the office of Juria Development Block and Anchalik Panchayat situated at Dagaon in the District of Nagaon, Assam filed a complaint being C.R. Case No. 1052/2014 on 14.10.2014 before the Magistrate Court against the respondent No. 2, alleging inter alia that since the wife of the petitioner lodged an ejahar against the maternal aunt of the accused, which was Page No.# 3/16

registered as Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 286/2014 under Sections 447/323/294 of IPC, out of grudge, the accused No. 2 with malafide intention with the intention to criminally defame and deceive the image of the petitioner before the public, lodged an FIR being Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 287/2014 under Sections 147/148/325/307 IPC against the petitioner.

5. Thereafter, the Magistrate Court, upon perusing the complaint petition and the statements of the complainant and the witnesses was of the opinion that no criminal case is made out against the respondent No. 2 and accordingly, vide Judgment & Order dated 04.02.2015, the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Magistrate Court dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under Sections 397/399/401 Cr.PC before the Revisional Court, wherein the Revisional Court after an elaborate consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties was pleased to hold by Order dated 30.12.2015 that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the Magistrate Court in dismissing the complaint and accordingly, dismissed the Revision Petition.

7. Against the said dismissal of the Revision Petition by the Revisional Court, the instant Criminal Petition has been filed seeking quashing of the said order of the Revisional Court.

8. Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, the Police authority Page No.# 4/16

upon finding no materials against the petitioner submitted final closure report against the petitioner. Hence, it is apparent that the allegations are false and merely set out against the petitioner in order to tarnish his image. He accordingly submits that a clear case of criminal defamation is made out on the body of the averments set out in the complaint and hence, the order of the Revisional Court in dismissing the order of the Magistrate Court in dismissing the complaint is totally perverse and bad in law and warrants interference from this Court, while exercising quashing jurisdiction.

9. Per contra, Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submits that mere filing of an FIR automatically cannot constitute a criminal defamation against the informant. He further submits that there is no whisper as regards the respondent No. 2 having published anything in the social platform or in the newspapers etc., which if publishedwould have tarnished the image of the petitioner before the public. He accordingly submits that the order of the Revisional Court up-holding the order of the Magistrate Court dismissing the said complaint warrants no interference from this Court.

10. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the contending parties and have perused the materials available on record.

11. It appears that the respondent No. 2 had lodged an ejahar on 21.06.2014 before the jurisdictional Police Station alleging that the petitioner alongwith the other co-accused assaulted his maternal aunt on 21.06.2014 causing grievous injuries by using deadly weapons.

Page No.# 5/16

12. It appears that upon receipt of the said FIR, a case was registered being Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 287/2014 under Sections 147/148/325/307 IPC against the petitioner alongwith others.

13. It appears that in the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, the learned Addl. Session Judge, Nagaon by Order dated 10.07.2015 was pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

14. It further appears that upon completion of the investigation, the jurisdictional Investigating Officer, though filed Charge-sheet against the other co-accused named in the FIR but sought closure against the petitioner on the ground that there was no evidence of his involvement in the said case.

15. It further appears that the petitioner thereafter filed the instant complaint alleging inter alia that the respondent No. 2 with the intention to tarnish the image before his colleague and public has falsely roped him in the said FIR.

16. Apt to refer the Complaint dated 14.10.2014, which reads as hereunder:-

Name and address of the Complainant:- Md. Sirajul Islam, aged 41 years, S/o Md. Amaqn Ullah, Vill. Pub Salpara, P.S. Rupahihat, Dist. Nagaon.

Name and address of the accused:- Md. Firoz Ahmed, S/o Late Hasan Uddin Ahmed Vill. Madhupr, Kadamtol, Dist. Nagaon.

            Section of Law :-              Under section 500 IPC.

            Date of occurance :-          21/06/2014, 22/06/2014, 10/07/2014
                                                                Page No.# 6/16


Place of occurance :-           Rupahihat, Nagaon Sadar.

Name and address of the witnesses:- 1. Abdul Kadir, S/o Late Sahed Ali, Vill. Pub Salpara.

2. Safiqul Islam, S/o Late Abdul Rezak, Vill. Paschim Salpara.

3. Naser Choukat, B.D.O., JuriaDevelopement Block & Chief Executive Officer, JuriaAnchalik Panchayat, Dogaon.

4. Kaosar Alam, S/O Late Jamsed Ali, Vill. Pub Salpara.

Witness nos. 1,2 &4 are of P.S. Rupahihat, District Nagaon, Assam.

The Complainant Most Respectfully Sheweth :-

That the complainant is a L.D. Assistant in the Office of JuriaDevelopement Block & Anchalik Panchayat. Further, he belongs to a respectable family. His residence is situated in Vill. Pub Salpara of Mouza- Laokhowa, near P.W.D. Road. He daily goes to the said Office of JuriaDevelopement Block &Anchalik Panchayat at Dagaon by his own vehicle from his own residence, discharges his duty and returns in the evening to his own house. The distance of the Office of Juria Development Block from the house of the complainant is about 20(Twenty) k.m.. On 21/06/14 the complainant in a usual time attended office and on completion of his duty returned back to his house in the evening.

The accused person residing at Madhupur, Kadamtol near Nagaon Town works as an Advocate Clerk in the Advocate Clerk Association of Nagaon Court. The distance between Madhupur and Pub Salpara is not less than 20/22 k.m.

Page No.# 7/16

The wife of the complainant, Musstt. Amirjan Begum lodged an ejahar against maternal aunt of the accused, Musstt. Moriom Nessa (W/o Nazrul Islam), Vill. Pub Salpara respect of an incident that took place at 12-30 p.m. on 21/6/14 which has been registered as Rupahihat P.S. Case no. 286/2014 u/s 447/323/294 of IPC and investigation was going on. Out of grudge of the same the accused person in retaliation with malice and with an intention to criminally defame, to deceive him before the public affecting his good reputation lodged an ejaharto the Rupahihat Police Station in his own hand writing making false, baseless and mala fide accusation knowing that the same were not correct. The accused person also stated that "Accused no.1 Sirajul Islam with an intention to kill my maternal aunt shove her in the water of pond catching hold of her neck." Further, in the beginning of the said ejahar he wrote that Sirajul Islam along with other accused persons armed with deadly weapons caused injury to the maternal aunt of the accused, Moriom Nessa, by assaulting her out of previous grudge, knowing fully that on 21/6/14 the complainant was working in the office of the Juria Development Block and that he was not present in the so called place of occurance.

On the basis of the ejahar submitted by the accused in writing in own hand, the Police of Rupahihat P.S. registered Rupahihat P.S. Case no.287/14 u/s 147/148/325/307 IPC and due to searching of the complainant by Police in connection with this case by the Police, the complainant had to approach the Court of Hon'ble Session Judge for obtaining anticipatory bail. The Court of Hon'ble Addl. Session Judge granted the anticipatory bail to the complainant vide order dated 09/07/2014. The Hon'ble Court observed that as per statement of the witnesses, Md. Sirajul Islam (Complainant) was working in his office on the day of incident. Further, the controlling officer of the complainant i.e. B.D.O., Juria Development Block (Witness no.3) stated in writing that the complainant was working in his office on 21/06/2014.

The accused person lodged the ejahar mala fidely out of jealousy and it was not done in good faith.

The said ejahar written by the accused himself was (published on Page No.# 8/16

21/6/2014 at Rupahihat P.S., on 22/6/2014 in the Court of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate and on 10.07.2014 in the Court of Session Judge. The cause of action of the case arose within the jurisdiction of Court in Rupahihat and Nagaon District Sadar.

The witnesses know about the incident and will prove.

It is, therefore, prayed that recording the statement of the complainant and summoning the accused for the offence u/s 500 IPC, Hon'ble Court be pleased to punish the accused.

Due to the act of the accused, the reputation of the complainant has been lowered, by making accusation over his character his prestige has been lowered in the society. The complainant suffered pecuniary loss for spending money in appointing advocate for the purpose of taking anticipatory bail. Hence, it is further prayed to grant compensation for Rs. 3 Lacs to the complainant as per the provision of section 357 of Cr.P.C.."

17. Apparent reading of the aforesaid complaint that the same has been filed against the petitioner only on the ground that he has made allegation against the petitioner in the FIR in question alongwith the other co-accused.Accordingly, it is stated in the complaint that the FIR was written by the respondent No. 2 himself and the same was published on 21.06.2014 at the Police Station and on 22.06.2014, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magaistrate and on 10.07.2014, in the Court of Session Judge.

18. It is beyond the understanding of this Court as how a lodging of an FIR in a jurisdictional Police Station be said to have been published in the Police Station andin the Magistrate Court and Revisional Court thereof. A FIR is not even put in the notice board of the jurisdictional Police Station nor is published Page No.# 9/16

in any public medium. Mere filing of a FIR automatically cannot constitute an offence of criminal defamation.

19. It further appears that in the FIR filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, though Charge-sheet was submitted against the other co-accused, however, upon being satisfied that there was no material against the petitioner, closure report against the petitioner was submitted. It is thus apparent that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner since he was not proceeded criminally in the said FIR.

20. Apt to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the Order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the Magistrate Court, which reads as hereunder:-

"Herein, the complainant has filed the case u/s 500, IPC, which is punishment for Defamation which agaisn is defined u/s 499, IPC as Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. Explanation 1.-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3,-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect Page No.# 10/16

of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Thus, one of the essential ingredient of the section any imputation must be done with the intention of harming the reputation of that person. One must keep in mind that a person's own opinion of himself is not his reputation. It rather means the opinion of others about him. The good opinion one bears or the esteem one is held in society is one's reputation and the same is made clear in Explanation 4 to section 499, IPC. Herein, the complainant himself has failed to show how his reputation was harmed by the lodging of the F.I.R, which even if it is to be believed was lodged falsely against him. Infact, strangely, the witnesses produced by him also have failed to show or state as to how the complainant's esteem had been lowered in front of their eyes due to the alleged F.I.R. Again, it is seen that none of the witnesses had seen the alleged F.I.R and only appears to have heard of the same. One of the witnesses infact states that after the police case filed against the complainant, nothing has changed in his opinion as regards the complainant. What the witnesses state only is the fact that the complainant was allegedly not present at the place of occurrence on the relevant day. They have admittedly not even seen the F.I.R and thus do not even know the contents of the same.

The learned advocate for the complainant has relied on the Judgment reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398, to show that every individual enjoys his reputation as a Fundamental Right. But a close perusal of the said Judgment (P-58) would only fortify the fact that Reputation differs from Character and is something which whatpeople say he is. Herein, the complaint and the materials available before not show that any loss or harm was caused to the complainant's reputation, even assuming that he had one before the public. One must also keep in mind at this stage, is that the F.I.R filed against the complainant had resulted in a charge sheet against the other accused persons being C.S No-185/14 dated 27.06.14 though the case was not sent up against the complainant. Thus, the case is still pending for trial and even assuming that the court had accepted Page No.# 11/16

the charge sheet showing the complainant in the not sent up column and proceeded, yet there is nothing to suggest that the court has not or will not at a future stage, not deem fit to implead the complainant as a accused. It also at this stage, upon the observations made in the bail order passed by the Hon'ble Addl Sessions Judge in make it imperative to hold that the case was filed falsely against the complainant with the intention to harm his reputation.

In my considered opinion, the complainant has failed to make out any case to satisfy this court that the same should be proceeded against u/s 500, IPC and summons should be issued to the accused. Further, the prayer seeking compensation u/s 357, Cr.P.C also appears to be misconceived.

Considering all of the above and for the failure on part of the complainant to make out a prima facie case to attract the ingredients of the alleged offence, the instant case is dismissed."

[[

21. It appears that the Magistrate Court has taken into account the ingredients of Section 499 IPC and after perusing the complaint and the materials available, was pleased to observe that the same on the face of it does not indicate that any loss or harm was caused to the petitioner's reputation.

22. It appears that the Magistrate Court has also taken into account that the said FIR filed against the petitioner had resulted in a Charge-sheet against the co-accused, though the case was not sent up against him and the said case is still pending for trial.

23. Apt also to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the Judgment & Order dated 30.12.2015 of the Revisional Court, which reads as hereunder:-

"8. Now the only question falls for determination in the present Page No.# 12/16

revision is whether there were materials before the Ld Magistrate to take the view that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused or not. To answer the above question let the fact of the case and the materials on record be appreciated here under-

In the instant case it is revealed that the petitioner being the complainant lodged the complaint against the accused- respondent No.2 stating inter-alia that on 21.06.2014 while he was attended his official duty, the accused/respondent No.2 in retaliation to Rupahihat P.S case No. 286/14 u/s 447/323/294 I.P.C lodged by his (complainant's) wife MussttAmirjan Begum against aunt of accused/respondent No.2 in respect of an incident took place on that day at 12-30 P.M. and with a view to take revenge, lodged a false F.I.R against the complainant and others at Rupahihat Police station attacking the character of the complainant stating that the complainant Sirajul Islam accompanied by others having armed with the weapons attacked his aunt and caused severe injury to her, besides the complainant with the intent to kill his aunt held her neck and shoved her into the water in the pond, in-spite of knowing the fact that he (complainant) was in his office at the relevant point of time and was not present at the site of occurrence took place. It is alleged in the complainant that on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the accused- respondent No.2 Police Registered Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 287/14 u/s 147/148/325/307 I.P.C and as a result he (complainant) had to seek pre- arrest bail where the Hon'ble Addl. Session Judge Nagaon vide his order dated 09.07.2014 granted him pre-arrest bail, holding the view that he (complainant) was present in his office on the relevant date and time.

9. Ld Magistrate on receipt of the complaint on 14.10.2014 examined the complainant on 17.12.14 and proceeded to cause inquiry on the complaint. On 07.01.2015 he examined two witnesses of the complainant and fixed the date on 28.01.15 for necessary order. Therefore it can be said that he has taken cognizance on 17.12.14 .The reasons being unless the Magistrate has taken cognizance he can neither issue process u/s 204 nor dismiss the complaint u/s 203 of the Code. Having heard the submission put forward by the Ld Advocate for the complainant as well as considering the materials on record the Ld Lower court has passed the Page No.# 13/16

impugned order dated 04.02.2015 dismissing the complaint u/s 203, Cr.P.C holding the view that the complainant has failed to make out any case to satisfy the court that the case should be proceeded against the accused u/s 500 I.P.C and summon should be issued to the accused and further the prayer seeking compensation u/s 357 Cr.P.C also appears to be misconceived.

10. The petitioner- complainant in his statement u/s 200 Cr. P.C reiterated the allegation brought in the complaint that the accused- respondent No.2 in retaliation to the case lodged by Musstt. Amirjan Begum against Musstt. Moriam Nessa aunt of accused-respondent No.2, falsely and maliciously lodged F.I.R to Rupahihat Police Station with unfounded allegations that on 21.06.14 at 12-30 p.m. the petitioner/complainant along with others forming an unlawful assembly having armed with sharp edge weapon attacked his aunt and caused severe injury by assaulting with the weapon in their hands intending to cause death and also the petitioner/complainant Sirajul Islam caught hold on the throat of his (respondent No.2) aunt and shoved her into the water of a pond and pressing hard with a view to cause death in spite of knowing the fact that the petitioner Sirajul Islam was on his official duty in Juria Block Development Office and was not present at the site of occurrence. It is also stated that the accused/ respondent No.2 made such false accusation against the petitioner/complainant with the sole intention to cause harm to his reputation, character and lower his dignity in the society and also to spoil his service career. The complainant in support of his case adduced two witnesses namely Shafiqul Islam and Abdul Kadir who were examined as C.W.1 and C.W.2 u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The witnesses in their statements u/s 202 Cr.P.C disclosed that an occurrence took place on 21.06.14. But both the witnesses categorically stated that they have not seen the occurrence. From the statements of the witnesses it is seen that they have only heard about the fact of accused Respondent No.2 Firoj Ahmed lodged an FIR against complainant Sirajul Islam and others in respect of the incident to police. Both the witnesses failed to disclose about the fact of any harm caused to the reputation of the complainant out of lodging the FIR by the accused Firoj Ahmed. Though the witnesses claimed that accused Respondent No.2 lodged Page No.# 14/16

false F.I.R but it is seen that the IO after completion of the investigation on the FIR lodged by the accused respondent No.2 has submitted charge-sheet for trial against other accused. So it cannot be straightway said that accused Firoj Ahmed lodged false FIR. In the charge-sheet the I/O submitted final report against complainant Sirajul Islam. The submission of final report cannot be said that the FIR was lodged by the accused respondent No.2 with false and malicious allegation. Upon perusal of the copy of FIR lodged by the accused respondent No.2 Firoj Ahmed it is seen that receiving information about the incident as he went to the place of occurrence he came to know from the public about the fact of complainant accompanied by others caused severe injury to his aunt by assaulting with the weapons in their hands so he lodged the complainant. One of the witness of the complainant made statement to the effect that he was not present in his house at the relevant point of time nor he knows about any F.I.R was lodged by accused/respondent No.2 against the complainant Sirajul Islam. Upon perusal of the impugned order it is seen that the Ld S.DJ.M while determining the question as to whether the complainant has prima facie been able to make out a case as alleged against the accused, for which the court ought to issue process to the accused to stand trial has elaborately discussed the fact of the case and the materials before him as well as the case law relied by the Id advocate and observed that "the complainant himself failed to show how his reputation was harmed by the lodging of the F.I.R which even it is to be believed was lodged falsely against him. In fact, strangely, the witnesses produced by him also have failed to show or state as to how the complainant's esteem had been lowered in front of their eyes due to the alleged F.I.R. Again it is seen that none of the witnesses had seen the alleged F.I.R and only appears to have heard of the same. Even one of the witnesses in fact states that after lodging of the F.I.R by the accused against the complainant nothing has been changed in his opinion as regards the complainant. What the witnesses states is only to the fact that the complainant was allegedly not present at the place of occurrence on the relevant day. They have admittedly not even seen the F.I.R and thus do not even know the contents of the same.

Page No.# 15/16

11. In case law of S:N Palamitkar and others VS State of Bihar reported in AIR 2001 SC 2960 it is observed that in a case of a complainant U/S 200 Cr.PC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examined the complainant and his witnesses, if any to ascertain whether a prima-facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complainant which is either false or vexatious or indented only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The words "Sufficient ground" had to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima- facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. In case law of DY Chief Controller of Imports and Exports VS Roshanlal Agarwal and ORS reported in AIR 2003 SC 1900 it is held that in determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not what the Magistrate had to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Having reliance on the decision cited above and on careful perusal of the complaint along with the documents submitted in support thereof as well as the statement of the complainant and his witnesses it appears that there was no sufficient materials before the Id Magistrate to take the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Hence I find no irregularity or illegality committed by the Id S.D.J.M, Nagaon in passing the impugned order dismissing the complaint.

12. In the result there is no merit in this revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed."

24. A perusal of the Judgment & Order of the Revisional Court, it is apparent that the Revisional Court upon being satisfied that the Magistrate Court has not committed any irregularity or illegality, in dismissing the case filed by the petitioner, dismissed the Revision Petition. This Court accordingly finds no infirmity in the findings and conclusion of both the Revisional Court as well as the Magistrate Court.

Page No.# 16/16

25. That being so, this Court finds no merit whatsoever in the instant Criminal Petition. Hence, the Criminal Petition fails.

26. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed.

No cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant