[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Tripura High Court

Smt. Iti Rani Barman (Aged About 66 ... vs The State Of Tripura on 13 April, 2026

                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                      Crl. Petn. No.48 of 2025

  1. Smt. Iti Rani Barman (aged about 66 years),
     Wife of Sri Narayan Barman,
     Resident of Chinaihani, P.O. Singarbil,
     P.S. Airport, District-West Tripura;
  2. Sri Narayan Barman (aged about 72 years)
     Son of late Ramani Mohan Barman,
     Resident of Chinaihani, P.O. Singarbil,
     P.S. Airport, District-West Tripura;
                                                     ------ Petitioner(s)
                                 Versus
 1. The State of Tripura,
    represented by the Secretary, Department of Home,
    Civil Secretariat, P.O. Civil Secretariat-799010,
    P.S. New Capital Complex, District West Tripura.
 2. Sri Krishnapada Das,
    S/O late Haripada Das,
    Resident of Gandhigram, Paschimpara, P.O. Gandhigram,
    P.S. Airport, District- West Tripura;
                                                     ------ Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Agniva Chakrabarti, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P., Ms. Paromita Dhar, Adv.

  Date of hearing        :      10.04.2026

  Date of delivery of
  Judgment & Order       :      13.04.2026

  Whether fit for
  reporting              :      YES




            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

                             Judgment & Order

Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Agniva Chakrabarti appearing

on behalf of the petitioner. Also, heard Learned Counsel, Ms.

Paromita Dhar appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant

and Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the State-

respondent.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C for quashing the case bearing No.PRC(SP)/112/2019 now

pending before the Court of J.M. 1st Class, Court No.8, Agartala,

West Tripura in connection with East Agartala PS case No.212/2018

under Section 353/506/34 of IPC.

3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner,

Mr. Chakrabarti drawn the attention of the Court that the present

petitioners are the in-laws of the respondent No.2. They solemnized

their daughter's marriage with the respondent No.2. Some

maladjustment was going on and as such, they went to meet the

respondent No.2 in his office on the alleged day so that the marital

discord cropped up between their daughter and the respondent No.2-

accused could be resolved. But the respondent No.2 being an

Government servant by misusing his power and chair has laid one FIR

against the present petitioners to the concerned PS and in absence of

materials on record, the IO has submitted charge-sheet against the

present petitioners for which the petitioners have compelled to file

this petition seeking redress before this Court. It was further

submitted by Learned Counsel that save and except two office staff

who are the subordinates of the informant, the IO in course of

investigation could not record the statement of any other witness to

substantiate the prosecution allegation which shows that the charge-

sheet submitted by IO was nothing but a false and concocted story

just to harass the present petitioners. So, in summing up, Learned

Counsel for the petitioner urged for quashing the entire proceeding

now pending before the Learned Trial Court.

4. On the other hand, Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on

behalf of the State-respondent submitted that since after proper

investigation the IO has submitted charge-sheet against the

petitioner-accused petitioners. So, at this stage, there is no material

before this Court to disbelieve the prosecution story and urged for

dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel, Ms. Paromita Dhar appearing on behalf of

the respondent-informant submitted that the case is at the stage of

recording of evidence. The alleged incident took place inside the office

premise on the alleged day and as such, it is quite natural that no

outsiders or public witnesses would be available to support the

prosecution allegation. Furthermore, from the statement of witnesses

namely Shepal Ch. Shil, Jhunu Das, Subimal Chakraborty, it is clear

that on the alleged day the present petitioner-accused persons

entered in the office of the informant and committed the offence and

as such, there is no scope to disbelieve the prosecution story.

Moreover, since the trial is likely to be commenced shortly, so,

opportunity should be given to the prosecution to prove the charge

levelled against the present petitioner-accused persons. It was further

fairly submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent-informant that

if it is found that the present-accused persons are innocent and have

been falsely implicated, in that case, there is every scope on their part

to conduct their defence properly to establish their stand of innocence

but at this stage, there is no scope to quash the proceeding pending

before the concerned Learned Trial Court and urged for dismissal of

the petition.

6. Now, let us discuss Section 482 of Cr.P.C which provides as

under:

"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

From the aforesaid provision of law, it appears that the High

Court may exercise inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of

any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

7. Here in the case at hand, after hearing Learned Counsel of

both the parties and also the statements of witnesses so far collected

by IO during the stage of investigation, prima facie, it appears to this

Court that on the alleged day the present petitioner-accused persons

entered into the office of the informant and caused hurt to him

although the same fact is subjected to be scrutinized/tested during

trial of this case. But on perusal of the materials on record and

considering the statements of witnesses as aforesaid, at this stage, I

do not find any scope to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. as prayed for by the petitioners. Furthermore, in course of

hearing of argument, Learned Counsel for the petitioners failed to

satisfy the Court by showing any other materials to exercise

jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a judgment reported in

(2021) 19 SCC 401 [titled as Neeharika Infrastructure Private

Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others dated 13.04.2021]

in para No.13.4, 13.5, 13.6 and 13.7 observed as under:

"13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the "rarest of rare cases". (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.) 13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.

13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule."

Further, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in another case reported

in (2013) 3 SCC 330 [titled as Rajiv Thapar and others Vs.

Madan Lal Kapoor dated 23.01.2013] in para Nos.26, 27, 28,

30.1, 30.2, 30.3, 30.4 and 30.5 observed as under:

"26. This Court had an occasion to examine the matter in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi:(2005) 1 SCC 568 (incidentally the said judgment was heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent complainant), wherein it was held thus: (SCC p. 581, para 29)

"29. Regarding the argument of the accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal case:(1992) SCC(Cri) 426) (emphasis supplied)

27. Recently, this Court again had an occasion to examine the ambit and scope of Section 482 CrPC in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar:(2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 721 wherein in the main order it was observed that the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was unlimited. In the said judgment, this Court held that the High Court could make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In a concurring separate order passed in the same case, it was additionally observed that under Section 482 CrPC, the High

Court was free to consider even material that may be produced on behalf of the accused, to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. The aforesaid parameters shall be kept in mind while we examine whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in the facts and circumstances of this case.

28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused.

Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.

30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?

30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."

From the aforesaid observation made by Hon'ble the Apex

Court it appears to this Court as to under what circumstances the

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be applied but here in the

case at hand the petitioners could not make out any case to invoke

the jurisdiction of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

8. In the result, the petition filed by the petitioner-accused

persons under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. bears no merit and accordingly,

the same stands dismissed. But considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, no order is passed as to costs. Since the

petitioner-accused persons and the respondent-informant are close

relatives to each other, so, it will be always open for the parties to go

for any settlement, if they are so adviced in near future.