Quashed

Lachit Basumatary and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC12 Sept 2019Crl.Pet./225/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC concerning an FIR alleging fraudulent land sales, the Gauhati High Court observed that the allegations did not disclose any cognizable offence. With the respondent informant's concession, the court quashed the proceeding as an abuse of process of the court.

What did the court decide?

The proceeding in Sonapur P.S. Case No. 373/2018 and proceeding incidental thereto, if any are hereby quashed.

Lachit Basumatary and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010044672019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 225/2019

¶5

1:LACHIT BASUMATARY AND 2 ORS.

¶6

S/O RUDRA RAM BASUMATARY, R/O GARCHUK, PO AND PS GARCHUK, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN-781035

¶7

2: BABUL BARUAH S/O ASHWINI BARUAH R/O TETELIA PO AND PS SONAPUR DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN CODE-782403

¶8

3: SATYA NARAYAN DEV NATH S/O RAJENDRA CHANDRA DEV NATH R/O KAMAKHYA COLONY PANDU GUWAHATI PO AND PS JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN CODE 78101

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

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

¶11

2:ADITYA KHAKHLARI SECRETARY GENERAL ALL ASSAM TRIBAL SANGHA TRIBAL REST HOUSE SOLAPARA PALTANBAZAR

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-78100

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SARMA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 12-09-2019

¶19

Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam. Also heard Mr. D. Rabha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

¶20

As agreed by both the parties this petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶21

By this application under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceeding in Sonapur P.S. Case No. 373/2018 under Section 420/468 IPC.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the FIR in the instant case did not make out any offence, the police registered the case under Section 420/468 IPC without applying mind.

¶23

The FIR in the instant case was lodged by the respondent No. 2, one Aditya Khakhlary alleging there in that some lands within the Tribal Belt area of Sonapur Revenue Circle were sold by the owners through their attorney. The specific allegations made in the FIR are as follows:

¶24

“1. One person namely Sri Narayan Debnath, son of Late Rajendra Debnath of Kamakhya Colony of Guwahati City had sold 9 bigha 3 lecha land under Patta No. 1 and Dag No. 10 to one person namely Sri Santanu Bhattacharjee, son of

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

Late Sambhu Battacharjee of village Sorutari under Mouza-Sonapur on 23.09.2009 through of Power of Attorney dated 1009.2009 though he was not a bonafide resident of Tribal Belt.

¶27

One person namely Sri Babul Baruah, son of Late A. Baruah, resident of Tetelia, P.O.-Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Khetri had sold 23 Bigha 2 Katha 12 Lechas land to Non-Assamese person namely Sri Hankstar Franklin, son of Late Benjamin Frinklin through the Power of Attorney though he was not a bonafide person.”

¶28

The allegations made in the FIR shows that the respective owners sold their lands through their attorney. Above allegation made in the FIR, even if accepted in its entirety, does not make out any offence, not to speak of any cognizable offence. However, the police has registered the case under Section 420/468 IPC, though there was absolutely no ingredient or element of the aforesaid offence. Since the so called FIR has not make out any cognizable offence, the police did not have jurisdiction to register the case on the basis of the said FIR.

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant has also fairly submits conceding the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the proceeding, that the allegation made in the FIR has not disclosed any offence.

¶30

Since the FIR has not made out any criminal offence, allowing the proceeding in the aforesaid criminal case to continue would be abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, this seems to be a fit case, where the proceeding in the Sonapur P.S. Case No. 373/2018 deserves to be quashed for ends of justice. Accordingly the proceeding in Sonapur P.S. Case No. 373/2018 and proceeding incidental thereto, if any are hereby quashed.

¶31

The criminal petition stands disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Lachit Basumatary and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lachit Basumatary and 2 Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Payeng and Ors. Vs Kula Payeng and Ors.

Smt. Monu Medhi and Anr. Vs House and Urban Development Corporation Limitedhudco Assam and 7 Ors.

Sri Pragati Prasad Bora Vs Sri Gobinda Ram Deka @ Gobinda Ch. Deka and Anr.

Madhab Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Hemen Das Doctor and Ors. Vs Dilima Das and Ors.

Nayan Ch. Dhar Vs the State of Assam