High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420/409 IPC as the complainant's affidavit negated the allegations of money demand, making conviction unlikely and continued proceedings an abuse of court process under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The FIR dated 20.06.2018 is quashed and the case proceedings against the petitioners are stopped.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010193902018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet. 894/2018
1:JOHURUL HASAN AND ANR. S/O JABIDUR RAHMAN, R/O VILLAGE NAMBERPARA PART-II, PS ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783392 (HE IS PRESENTLY SERVING AS THE GRAM ROZGAR SAHAYAK IN KIRTANPARA GAON PANCHAYAT)
2: SHOFIKUL ISLAM S/O TAHER ALI R/O VILLAGE KOKILA PT-I PO KOKILA PS ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78339 VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S N TAMULI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
Date : 01-10-2018
This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, seeking quashment of the
Page No.# 2/3
FIR, dated 20.06.2018 lodged by the informant , Shofikul Islam (petitioner No. 2) on the basis of which Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 337/2018 has been registered under Sections 420/409 of the IPC.
Heard Mr. SN Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent.
I have perused the petition and the annexures annexed therewith.
On perusal of the petition, it appears that the informant was sanctioned some amount for a fishery by the Government of Assam and the petitioner No. 1, who was the GRS of the concerned Panchayat demanded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to him for release of the amount sanctioned by the Government for the fishery in favour of the petitioner No. 2.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this is a joint petition submitted by the accused-petitioner No. 1 and the informant/petitioner No. 2 stating that the case is the result of misunderstanding between them. In an affidavit filed by the informant/petitioner No. 2, particularly, paragraph 4 thereof, he has categorically stated that he has lodged the complaint with a view to see that the amount sanctioned by the Government is released by the Panchayat concerned. He lodged the complaint/FIR with the advice of some other person.
On perusal of the said affidavit, filed by the petitioner No. 2/informant, it is found that he has not alleged that the accused-petitioner No. 1 has demanded money from him and there is no misappropriation of money sanctioned to him. Such being the position appearing from the affidavit as well as the joint petition filed by the parties, this court is of the view that to continue with the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court as it is unlikely that the informant/petitioner No. 2 will subscribe to what he has alleged in his FIR during the trial of the case although cases involving finance is not encouraged to be settled. Yet in view of the decision rendered in Narinder Singh vs. State of Pujab as supplemented by Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. , reported in ( 2017) 9 SCC 641 if there is no chance of conviction of the accused-petitioner, the same can be appropriately quashed.
Page No.# 3/3
In the instant case, it does not appear that in view of the stand taken by the informant in the affidavit, the case would result in conviction, and in that event, it will be an abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, the FIR, referred to above, is quashed.
Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as there is no chance of conviction and proceeding would be an abuse of process of court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶20
Narinder Singh vs. State of Pujab
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.Relied on¶20
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Johurul Hasan and Anr.
Shofikul Islam
The State of Assam
Hitesh Kumar Sarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
