Dismissed

Arjun Mandal v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC4 Jan 2019Crl.Pet./1314/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected the criminal petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 376 IPC. The court held the charging materials were sufficient and the case carried serious allegations, denying the petitioner's grounds regarding the case diary and the victim's marriage.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the FIR dated 15.06.2011 pertaining to Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 72/2011 is dismissed as devoid of merit.

Arjun Mandal Vs the State of Assam — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010286932018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 1314/2018

¶5

1:ARJUN MANDAL

¶6

S/O SRI ASWINI MANDAL, R/O VILL. NANDOWA BORI, PS JAGIROAD, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

2:PULIN BISWAS S/O DINAMONI BISWAS R/O VILL DHIPUJI JAN PARA PS PRAGJYOTISHPUR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M). ASSAM PIN-78244

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. A MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 04-01-2019

¶15

Heard Ms. A Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P H Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the opposite party No. 1.

¶16

The petitioner is a FIR named charge-sheeted accused under Section 376 IPC in Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 72/2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.5379/2011.

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 15.06.2011 pertaining to said Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 72/2011.

¶19

The FIR (Annexure-1 to the petition) filed by the informant/opposite party No. 2 herein reflects that the petitioner is an employee in the Pharmacy of Sri Jiladhar Biswas at Dhanmunda and on 11.06.2011, when he committed rape on the victim, daughter of the informant, one lady, namely, Ms. Danya Biswas caught him red handed. Thereafter, in a village meeting held on 12.06.2011, the accused petitioner confessed of committing rape on the victim and assured that he will marry her, but on 13.06.2011, the accused fled away from the concerned village and on being searched, as he could not be found, the informant lodged the FIR on 15.06.2011 before the Officer-in-Charge of Pragjyotishpur Police Station and accordingly, Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 72/2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 5379/2011 under Section 376 IPC was registered against the petitioner.

¶20

The I.O. of the case during investigation took step to record the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she was medically examined and recorded the statement of the witnesses acquainted with the case under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and on completion of the investigation submitted a charge-sheet in said Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 72/2011 on 30.04.2014 vide Charge-Sheet No. 34/2014 along with the medical report of the victim, finding sufficient incriminating and prima-facie material against the petitioner, with regard to his involvement in the case.

¶21

On perusal of the charge-sheet, the medical report of the victim, the statement of the victim girl made before the learned Magistrate as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded with the concerned Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, took cognizance of the offences under Section 376 IPC and issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance in said G.R. Case No.5379/2011 arising out of Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 72/2011, which is fixed today for appearance of the petitioner.

¶22

During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the next date for appearance of the petitioner is fixed on 21.02.2019.

¶23

The petitioner submitted that the said FIR pertaining to Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 72/2011 need to be quashed as the case diary pertaining to the said Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case is not in conformity with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and to that extent, he has placed reliance of the judgment of this Court in the case of IN-RE Fakrul Islam and Others, reported in 2012 (2) GLT 994. But the petitioner has failed to establish as to how the Investigating Officer failed to maintain the

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

relevant case diary of said Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 72/2011 as per the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

¶26

During the course of the argument, it is also submitted by the petitioner that the victim girl is already got married. Petitioner is an accused of heinous crime of rape with a girl registered under Section 376 IPC. It is only in the rarest of rare case, where there is no possibility to implicate the accused for the relevant provisions under the IPC of which the materials are not available in the charge-sheet and in a case, where there is no possibility to prove the case against the accused persons, in such circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that FIR can be quashed. Section 376 IPC is an offence not only personal but also against the State.

¶27

In the present case, it is only on the basis of the statement of the victim recorded by the learned Magistrate, and her medical examination report as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded by the concerned Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., being prima-facie satisfied, the learned Trial Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance in the said case. Moreover, Section 376 IPC is a Session’s triable case and only when the petitioner appears before the Magistrate, the same can be committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for trial of the same.

¶28

The petitioner failed to place any reasonable ground to quash the FIR dated 15.06.2011 pertaining to Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 72/2011, wherein he is a charge-sheeted accused so as to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶29

In view of the above and being devoid of merit, this criminal petition stands dismissed.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Arjun Mandal v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Mandal v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Amal Kumar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Partha Das and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Mayan Ali @ Moi Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sudarshan Bhattari and 3 Ors. Vs Smt. Rekha Rijal

Subir Kr. Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.