Crl.Pet./977/2023
2025 Latest Caselaw 4978 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Crl.Pet./977/2023 on 26 May, 2025

                                                                     Page 1 of 7


  GAHC010205122023




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

                           Crl.Pet./977/2023
                      1.   Jume Begum Laskar
                           D/O Noor Uddin Laskar,
                           Of Village - Barnagad, P.O. Kalibaribazar,
                           P.S. Algapur, District Hailakandi, Assam

                      2.   Karim Uddin @ Karim Uddin Barbhuiya
                           S/O Late Abdur Rahman Barbhuiya
                           Of Village- Niz Katigorah Part-III P.O.
                           Katigorah P.S. Katigorah
                           District Cachar Assam

                      3.   Rohim Uddin Barbhuiya
                           S/O Late Abdur Rahman Barbhuiya
                           Of Village- Niz Katigorah Part-III P.O.
                           Katigorah P.S. Katigorah
                           District - Cachar Assam

                                                                .....Petitioners
                                     -Versus-

                      1.   The State of Assam
                           To be represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam



  Crl.Pet./977/2023                                                     Page 1
                                                                     Page 2 of 7


                      2.   Noor Uddin Barbhuiya
                           S/O Lt. Asab Ali Barbhuiya
                           Of Village - Niz Katigorah Part-III P.O. Katigorah
                           P.S. Katigorah District - Cachar Assam Pin-78880

                                                             ......Respondents
For Petitioner(s)     :    Mr. A. M. Mazumder, Advocate
For Respondent(s)     :    Mr. K. K Das, Advocate
                           Mr. N. Mahajan, Amicus Curiae

Date of Judgment           26.05.2025


                                BEFORE
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                     JUDGMENT

(MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J)

1. Heard Mr. A. M. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state as well as Mr. N. Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae, who was appointed by this Court to assist the Court in this case.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Jume Begum Laskar, (2) Karim Uddin @ Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, (3) Rohim Uddin Barbhuiya, praying for quashing of the FIR dated 01.08.2023, filed by the respondent No. 2, Noor Uddin Barbhuiya, on the basis of which, Katigorah P.S. Case No.110/2023 under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.

Crl.Pet./977/2023 Page 2

3. The facts relevant for consideration of this Criminal Petition, in brief, are that the petitioner No. 1 is the wife of petitioner No. 2, and the petitioner No. 3 is the elder brother of petitioner No. 2. On 01.08.2023, one Noor Uddin Barbhuiya had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Katigorah Police Station, naming therein two accused persons (the petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3) inter-alia, alleging that when the first informant was away from his house, at Meghalaya, for the purpose of livelihood, the accused No. 1, Karim Uddin @ Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, took away his wife, Jume Begum Laskar, during his absence. It was also alleged that at the time of taking, his wife, the five years old son of the informant was also taken by the accused No. 1, along with some cash and gold earrings, etc. It is also alleged therein that the accused No. 2, Rohim Uddin Barbhuiya (petitioner No. 3), is also involved in the matter, and when the informant inquired about the same, he threatened the informant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations leveled in the FIR are absurd, and not true. He submits that the alleged victim, namely, Jume Begum Laskar, is herself a joint petitioner, in this criminal petition, along with the other two accused persons.

5. It is submitted that though, the petitioner No. 1, was married to respondent No. 2, in the year 2011, however, the respondent No. 2, being a habitual drunkard, used to physically assault the petitioner No. 1, who somehow tolerated the said torture for the sake of her

Crl.Pet./977/2023 Page 3

marriage. However, on 20.03.2019, the respondent No. 2, pronounced Talaq and divorced the petitioner No. 1, and since then, she is living in her parental house along with her three children.

6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1, being a major person, had, on 22.07.2023, solemnized social marriage with the petitioner No. 2, as per Islamic rites.

7. It is also submitted that at the time of marriage with the petitioner No. 1, he also accepted her three children, which were born out of her previous wedlock. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that unable to accept the fact that the petitioner No.1 has willfully married the petitioner No. 2 and continuing a happy conjugal life, the respondent No. 2, had lodged the false FIR, against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the sole purpose of lodging the false FIR, against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is to wreak vengeance against them and to harass them and as well as to disturb the peaceful conjugal life of petitioner No. 1.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the Katigorah P.S. Case No.110/2023 has been registered under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, however, no ingredient of the said offence is there in this case.

10. He submits that in this connection the petitioner No.1, who is the alleged victim in the case has also filed an additional affidavit,

Crl.Pet./977/2023 Page 4

wherein she has categorically stated that all the allegations made in the FIR filed by the respondent No.2 are false. After she was divorced by respondent No.2, she along with her children are presently residing in her maternal home at Barnagad, in the Hailakandi district. The petitioner No. 1 voluntarily and out of her free will married the petitioner No.2 and since then they have been happily enjoying their conjugal life.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the victim woman has herself stated on affidavit that she married the petitioner No.2 out of her own free will and the allegations leveled in the FIR are not true; and when she is herself a joint petitioner of this criminal petition, it reflects the falsity of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 and no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings of Katigorah P.S. Case No.110/2023. He, therefore, submits that the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 on the basis of which Katigorah P.S. Case No.110/2023 has been registered is liable to be quashed.

12. On the other hand, Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that though, the petitioner No. 2 was granted interim bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge on 13.08.2023 in respect of Katigorah P.S. Case No.110/2023, however, the case diary shows that the petitioner No. 2 has not appeared before the Investigating Officer, hence, his conduct does not inspire confidence.

Crl.Pet./977/2023 Page 5

13. On the other hand, Mr. N. Mahanjan, the learned Amicus Curiae has also submitted that though apart from allegations under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, the accusation of kidnapping of minor son of the informant has also been made in the FIR. However, he fairly submits that since the petitioner is the mother of three minor children and is their natural guardian, the case of kidnapping is not made out against her.

14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on record.

15. The power of quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a wide power. The same has to be sparingly exercised and only when such exercise of power secures the ends of justice.

16. In the instant case, the victim woman is herself a joint petitioner with the accused persons in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She has also filed an additional affidavit before this Court, wherein it has been categorically stated that she is the wife of the petitioner No. 2 and she married him after she was divorced by her earlier husband. (respondent No. 2). She also clearly states that she has left the house of respondent No. 2, on her own free will and she presently stays with her father in her paternal home.

17. Under above circumstances, the ingredients of offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code are not there in this case and

Crl.Pet./977/2023 Page 6

FIR seems to have been lodged with the intention which is manifestly attended with malafide. As the FIR in this case, appears to have been lodged by respondent No.2 with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the petitioner No.2 to whom the petitioner No.1, (his earlier wife), got married. When the victim woman herself has stated on oath that the FIR has been falsely registered against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, there is a likelihood that if the said criminal proceeding is allowed to be continued, it would not be for the ends of justice, rather it would be used as a tool for harassing the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No.2.

18. Considering overall facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of considered opinion that the ends of justice would be best secured by quashing the FIR dated 01.08.2023, on the basis of which, Katigorah P.S. Case No. 110/2023 was registered.

19. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned herein before, the FIR dated 01.08.2023 and all consequential proceedings that arise therefore, including Katigorah P.S. Case No. 110/2023 under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1908, is hereby quashed.

20. This Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed.

21. Send back the case diary.

                                                       JUDGE
     Comparing Assistant




Crl.Pet./977/2023                                                      Page 7