Disposed

Pradip Kumar Bora v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC7 Mar 2019Crl.Pet./1235/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged framing of charges under IPC Sections 468, 200, and 420 in a private complaint. Court prima facie held Section 468 inapplicable but Section 200/415/420 depended on record assessment. Court permitted Section 216 application for charge alteration and suspended trial.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to petitioner to move the trial court under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charges; trial suspended until application decided.

Pradip Kumar Bora Vs the State of Assam and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010269722018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 1235/2018

¶5

1:PRADIP KUMAR BORA S/O SRI MATI RAM BORA R/O VILL- GOMOTHAGAON, P.O. URIAGAON UNDER NAGAON SADAR P.S. DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

2:S K GHOSH SECRETARY DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY NAGAON ASSAM PIN - 782001

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 07-03-2019

¶13

Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi,

¶14

learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2.

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

This criminal petition has been filed assailing the order dated 23-11-2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon in P.R. Case No. 586/2017 framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 468/200/420 IPC.

¶17

By referring to the impugned order as well as the materials available on record, Mr. Bora submits that there was no material before the court to frame charge against the petitioner under any of those sections. It is the further contention of Mr. Bora that in the absence of any ingredients to frame charge under Section 199 Cr.P.C; the court below was not correct in applying Section 200 IPC in this case. Mr. Bora has also argued that even assuming that this is a case coming within the ambit of Section 200 Cr.P.C. even then, it being a non-cognizable section, the Police was not authorized to register a police case and conduct any investigation without prior permission of the Magistrate. To such extent submits Mr. Bora, the charge-sheet itself is invalid.

¶18

Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, on the other hand, contends that Section 200 IPC is a provision which operates independently and in a completely different field as compared to Section 199 Cr.P.C. The learned Addl. P.P. has fairly submitted that there may not be any material to frame charge in this case under Section 468 IPC. However, it is the submission of Mr. Gogoi that the materials available on record prima facie indicates that charge can be framed against the petitioner under Sections 200/ 415 IPC.

¶19

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also carefully gone through the FIR dated 24-02-2016 and the charge-sheet brought on record. From a perusal of the relevant materials, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that Section 468 IPC would not have any application in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

However, whether Sections 200/415/420 of the IPC would be attracted in this case or not is a matter that would depend on proper appreciation of materials available on record.

¶22

Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. permits the court to alter charges at any stage before the judgment is pronounced. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is ample scope for the learned trial court to revisit the order framing charge against the petitioner. This petition is, therefore, disposed of by granting leave to the petitioner to move the court below by filing an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. seeking alteration of charge, if so advised.

¶23

If such an application is filed by the petitioner within 04 weeks from today, the same may be considered objectively, based on materials available on record and be dispose of by a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

Until such time the above exercise is completed, trial in connection with P.R. Case No. 586/2017 shall remain suspended.

¶25

Criminal petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Send back the LCR.

¶27

JUDGE GS

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Pradip Kumar Bora v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Kumar Bora v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Kohinoor Plywoods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Amit Kumar Singhal (Agarwal) and 4 Ors.

Rajekul Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Nirmal Chandra Paul and 6 Ors. Vs Jyotsna Paul and 5 Ors.

Smti Lily Basumatary and 3 Ors, Vs Bibekananda Basumatary and 6 Ors.

M/S M.K. Engineering Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S G and T Beckfield Drilling Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.