Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 6860 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 1 September, 2025

                                                              Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010045202025




                                                        undefined

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

                         Case No. : Crl.Pet./309/2025

         MD ASHLAM AHMED AND 13 ORS.
         S/O SAYAD ALI
         VILL- MATIKHOLA
         MOUZA- KAPASHBARI
         DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM

         2: MD JONAID ALI
          S/O SAYAD ALI
         VILL- MATIKHOLA
         MOUZA- KAPASHBARI
         DIST. HOJAI
         ASSAM

         3: MD HILLAL UDDIN
          S/O LATE ABDUL MATLIB
         RESIDENT OF VILL TENGRIPAR
          MOUZA CUM P.S. HOJAI
          DIST. HOJAI
         ASSAM

         4: MD ADIL AHMED
          S/O MD. HILLAL UDDIN
         RESIDENT OF VILL TENGRIPAR
          MOUZA CUM P.S. HOJAI
          DIST. HOJAI
         ASSAM

         5: MD NASIR UDDIN
          S/O LATE ABDUL MATLIB
         RESIDENT OF VILL TENGRIPAR
          MOUZA CUM P.S. HOJAI
          DIST. HOJAI
         ASSAM
                                Page No.# 2/10

6: MD JABED HUSSAIN
 S/O LATE ABDUL MATLIB
RESIDENT OF VILL TENGRIPAR
 MOUZA CUM P.S. HOJAI
 DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM

7: MUSSTT LULUFA BEGUM
 D/O LATE ABDUL MATLIB
RESIDENT OF VILL TENGRIPAR
 MOUZA CUM P.S. HOJAI
 DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM

8: SRI NIRMAL MAZUMDER
 S/O LATE HARAKUMAR MAZUMDER

RESIDENT OF VILL TENGRIPAR
MOUZA CUM P.S. HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM

9: MD INAMUDDIN
 S/O RUSTAM ALI
RESIDENT OF VILL TENGRIPAR
 MOUZA CUM P.S. HOJAI
 DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM

10: MD FARIZUDDIN
 S/O KATAI MIA
RESIDENT OF VILL TENGRIPAR
 MOUZA CUM P.S. HOJAI
 DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM

11: MD ABDUL JALIL
 S/O ABUDS SATTAR
RESIDENT OF VILL TENGRIPAR
 MOUZA CUM P.S. HOJAI
 DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM

12: MD ABDUL HANNAN
 S/O LATE MOSKANDAR ALI
RESIDENT OF VILL TENGRIPAR
 MOUZA CUM P.S. HOJAI
 DIST. HOJAI
                                                                            Page No.# 3/10

             ASSAM

            13: MD NAZRUL ISLAM
             S/O LATE AKADASS ALI
            R/O JAYANTIABASTI
            MOUZA CUM P.S.HOJAI
            DIST. HOJAI
            ASSAM

            14: MD NURUL ISLAM
             S/O MUSTAKIN ALI
            R/O JAYANTIABASTI
            MOUZA CUM P.S.HOJAI
            DIST. HOJAI
            ASSA

            VERSUS

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

            2:FATIMA BEGUM
            W/O BADRUL ISLAM
            R/O VILL- UTTAR DIMORUPAR
             P.S. MURAJHAR
             DIST. HOJAI
            ASSAM
             MOBILE NO. 967827644

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N H MAZARBHUIYAN, MR R I BHUYAN,MR. M H
SAIKIA,MS. L WAJEEDA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR ROBIUL HOQUE (R2),MRS. R MOMTAZ
(R2),ALHAJJ I UDDIN (R2)




                                   BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

                                        ORDER

Date: 01.09.2025

Heard Mr. M. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. P. P. representing the State respondent and Mr. A. I. Uddin, Page No.# 4/10

learned counsel representing the respondent no. 2.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside the PRC Case No. 999/2024 of Murajhar Police Station, which has been charge-sheeted under Sections 143/144/147/148/149/447/448/379/427/506 of the IPC.

3. The facts arising from the case are that the respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR dated 12.05.2024, inter alia, alleging that one bigha of land as described in the schedule of the FIR belongs to the grandmother and uncle of the informant; that over the said land, the informant and her family members were residing constructing a kutcha house; that at about 10 PM on 12.05.2024, the above named accused persons came with weapons like dao, lathi etc., riding on a vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing Registration No. AS-01-PM-0251 and thereby, demolished the house and damaged the furniture therein; that the accused persons took away some valuable papers also; that the accused persons threatened to kill the informant and as the police was informed, the accused persons left the place. Accordingly, on receipt of the FIR, a case was registered i.e. Murajhar P.S. Case No. 79/2024, under Sections 143/144/147/148/149/447/448/379/427/506 of the IPC. After investigation of the case, the police submitted charge-sheet No. PRC 999/2024 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sankardevnagar. After the filing of the Charge-sheet, the Court of JMFC, Sankardevnagar, issued summons to the accused persons.

4. The case of the petitioners is that the dispute is purely of civil nature, wherein, the husband of the respondent no. 2 had filed a title suit, namely, Title Suit No. 66/2024, in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hojai, Sankardevnagar, claiming title over the same plot of land wherein, the present petitioners are arrayed as defendants. The title suit is still pending before the Page No.# 5/10

aforesaid Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hojai, Sankardevnagar and the petitioners have already filed written statement in the title suit. It is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have also filed a counter claim in the same title suit no. 66/2024.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute in the instant case is purely of civil nature, as is apparent from the pending title suit. He submits that only because of the pending title suit, to pressurize the petitioners, the respondent no. 2 has filed the FIR which is totally baseless and illegal. He submits by citing the case of State of Haryana & Ors., vs Bhajanlal & Ors., reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 355, that the principles laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) may be applied to and thereby, the proceeding relating to the aforesaid FIR and subsequent charge-sheet may be set aside and quashed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the title suit does not have any connection with the FIR filed. He submits that, in spite of the pendency of the title suit, the petitioners came to the disputed land, assaulted and threatened to kill the informant and her family. Therefore, there is no infirmity in pursuing the civil case as well as criminal case parallelly.

7. The learned Addl. P.P. Mr. R. J. Baruah, submits that there are sufficient materials in the FIR and after proper investigation, the Charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Police authority, also transpire criminal activities by the accused petitioners. Therefore, he submits that this instant petition may be rejected.

8. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

9. It is seen from the materials brought before this Court that the Title Suit No. 66/2024 was filed, as per the verification, on 17.05.2024 by the respondent no. 2 Page No.# 6/10

against the accused petitioners, whereas, the FIR was filed by the informant i.e., the respondent no. 2 on 12.05.2024. Therefore, it is discernible that the respondent no. 2 has filed the FIR before instituting the title suit.

10. The question as to whether civil and criminal proceedings, both can be maintained on the very set of allegations qua the same person, the settled legal position is that, there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is present, a civil case can also co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact that the civil remedy is also being availed by a complainant ipso facto is not a sufficient ground to quash an FIR.

11. This legal principle has been laid by the Apex Court in the case of P. Swaroopa Rani vs M. Hari Narayana, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Sayed Akbar Imam v. Imam vs Delhi Administration, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 528. In the instant case also, it is seen that the FIR as well as the Charge-sheet disclose prima facie commission of criminal offence by the accused petitioners. Only because of filing of the title suit by the informant against the petitioners, cannot take away or dilute the aspect of commission of criminal offences under the BNS, 2023.

12. It is a settled legal position that, while hearing the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the Court is not supposed to conduct a mini-trial by indulging itself into the minute intricacies of the case and the High Court is required to look into as to whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not. All these depend on the nature of case alleged in the FIR or complaint. The Court has to examine whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not while looking into the materials available before the Court. A matter involving criminal offence can have also a civil texture.

13. At this point of time, it may be worthwhile to refer to a case i.e. Supriya Jain Page No.# 7/10

Vs. State of Haryana & Another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court while hearing the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, having been laid down in Paragraph No. 17 of the aforesaid case, the relevant parts of the same are extracted herein below: -

"17. This is a case where the charges have been framed and the accused are awaiting trial. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous (except to the extent we propose to mention before concluding our judgment) that allowing the trial to progress might cause a miscarriage of justice. This is also not an appropriate stage to delve deep into the records. It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to quashing of a charge/proceedings either in exercise of jurisdiction under section 397, Cr. P.C. or section 482, Cr. P.C. or together, as the case may be, has engaged the attention of this Court many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the precedents on the point, the principles have been summarized by this Court succinctly. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, this Court laid down the following guiding principles:

"27.1. ..........................................................

27.2. ...........................................................

Page No.# 8/10

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.

27.4. ............................................................

27.5. ............................................................

27.6. ............................................................

27.7. ............................................................

27.8. ............................................................

27.9. ............................................................

27.10. ..........................................................

27.11. ..........................................................

27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution.

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.

27.14. ..............................................................

27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would Page No.# 9/10

amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist."

14. In the above case, it has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while hearing the petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, High Court does not need to delve into the minute records. It is no part of the business of any of the Courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, conviction or acquittal of the accused. It was further laid down that meticulous examination of the evidence is not needed for considering at the stage of hearing of such petition. It was further laid down that quashing of 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 it's quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to deicide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an option formed prima facie.

15. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and further due consideration, this Court is of the opinion that each case has to be dealt independently on the basis of the materials on record and the established legal positions. In the instant case, though a title suit was initiated by the respondent no. 2, against the petitioners, the discernible criminal offences from the FIR and Charge-sheet cannot be diluted. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned cases, the two proceedings can parallelly proceed, more so, when the cause of action in both the cases are different.

16. Considering all aspects of the matter in its entirety, including the submissions made by the respective learned counsels, materials brought on record Page No.# 10/10

in the instant case and the case laws that have been discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, deserves to be not entertained at this stage and therefore, this petition stands dismissed, as rejected.

17. This Criminal Petition is accordingly disposed of, as dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant