Quashed

Mobarak Hussain v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC9 Apr 2019Crl.Pet./264/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashment of framed charges. The Court found no incriminating material in the case diary and aligned the petitioner with another co-accused whose charge was quashed, discharging the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The order framing charge dated 22.11.2018 is quashed and set aside; the accused-petitioner is discharged.

Mobarak Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010053742019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 264/2019

¶5

1:MOBARAK HUSSAIN

¶6

S/O ANOWAR BEPARI, R/O AIRANJONGLA PART-III, P.S.-DHUBRI, P.O.-A.M. CO. ROAD, DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783323

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶9

2:SARBESH ALI S/O MD. JINNAT ALI R/O AIRANJONGLA PART-III P.S.-DHUBRI P.O.-A.M. CO. ROAD DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78332

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T H HAZARIKA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 09-04-2019

¶16

Heard Mr. TH Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent No. 1.

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court proposes to dispose of this matter at this motion stage itself.

¶19

This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quashment of the orders, dated 30.10.2018 and 22.11.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Dhubri in Sessions Case No. 159/2016 whereby charge against the accused-petitioner has been framed under Sections 324/326/307/302/149 of the IPC.

¶20

I have perused the impugned orders.

¶21

A prayer made by the petitioner to discharge him from the charge was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Dhubri.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the materials provided to him under Section 207 of the Cr.PC, has submitted that none of the witnesses has implicated the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offences and inspite of that the learned court below had framed the charge, as indicated above, vide order dated 22.11.2018.

¶23

I have examined the case diary placed before this court.

¶24

On perusal of the case diary, it appears that it has subscribed to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the witnesses has implicated the accused-petitioner and as such there is absence of materials to presume, prima facie, that the accused-petitioner has committed the alleged offence.

¶25

Such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner had also been agreed to by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. BB Gogoi as he has submitted that on perusal of the materials in the case diary, he could not notice any implicating materials against the present petitioner.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order, dated 07.02.2019, passed by this court in Criminal Petition No. 6/2019 by which order a similar prayer for quashment of order framing charge in respect of some other accused in the same case has been set aside in view of absence of material in the statement of the witnesses.

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

On the basis of the materials placed before this court, it is found that the petitioner before this court is similarly situated with the petitioner in the aforesaid Criminal Petition and needs to be dealt with similarly.

¶29

So, in view of the above discussions and the findings recorded therein, this court is of the view that the order, dated 22.11.2018 framing charge against the accusedpetitioner needs to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the order framing charge, referred to above, is quashed and set aside. The accused-petitioner is discharged.

¶30

With the above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed off.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Mobarak Hussain v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mobarak Hussain 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

Safiur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Gajen Kalita and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Saynul Haque Choudhury @ Md. Sainul Haque Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Jogendra Dhawmin Vs the State of Assam

Ranjit Saikia Vs State of Assam and Anr.

Paramananda Rajbongshi Vs Smti. Queen Das