Dismissed

Prakash Protim Bora v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC24 Oct 2019Crl.Pet./845/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a second FIR under Section 498A IPC. It held that since the first FIR ended with a final report following a settlement, the subsequent FIR was based on a new cause of action and was valid.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of without interfering with the investigation; interim order vacated; no coercive measures directed against the petitioner.

Prakash Protim Bora Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010045332017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 845/2017

¶5

1:PRAKASH PROTIM BORA

¶6

S/O SHRI BIREN BORA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O VILL- PURANA AMULAPOTTY, HABIAL GAON, PS/PO- GOLAGHAT, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785621, PH 9864029900

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶9

2:SMTI KARABI PHUKAN BORA D/O BHADESWAR PHUKAN R/O LALUK RATNAPUR PS- LALUK LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR PIN-78416

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S PATWARI

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 24-10-2019

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr F Khan and also learned counsel for the respondent, Mr Mintu Saikia.

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

By filing this application under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner, who has been arrayed as an accused in Satgaon PS Case No. 241/2017 under Section 498 A IPC, has sought for quashing of the FIR on the ground that it is a second FIR by the same respondent/his wife, while she has already filed another FIR dated 25.04.2017, which is before the Golaghat Police Station and which has been registered as Golaghat P S Case No. 254/2017 under Section 498 A IPC .

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first FIR was filed on 25.04.2017 raising the allegations of dowry demand and physical assault upon her by the petitioner and that she was ousted from his house for which she went to her parental house and thereafter on similar ground, she filed another FIR dated 25.09.2017, raising similar allegations about the demand of dowry and physical assault and that she has been ousted from his house on 28.08.2017 by assaulting her, which has been registered as Satgaon PS Case No. 241/2017 under Section 498 A IPC. Accordingly, it has been contended that there cannot be two FIRs on the same set of facts and the second FIR is accordingly liable to be set aside and quashed.

¶19

The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit they filed, wherein they have contended that although the respondent has filed earlier case before Golaghat but subsequently it was settled down between the parties and by making an affidavit/agreement dated 11.05.2017, before the Notary Public, Golaghat, and acknowledging the same, the respondent/wife stated that she would not continue with the aforesaid case and that both of them would continue their conjugal life for the interest of their minor child. It is submitted that after the said affidavit/agreement they started their marital life again along with the child and informed the matter of such development to the Investigating Officer concerned. But, although respondent/wife is willing to continue with the conjugal life, but her husband/present petitioner has started both physical and mental torture upon her and also ousted her from the rental premises, in which they stayed, as a result of which, she filed the second FIR at Satgaon (which has been impugned). Along with the affidavit filed by the respondent, he also annexed both the FIR and the findings of the earlier FIR, which has ended in Final Report vide Annexure-F.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the respondent/wife could have protested filing of such final report instead of filing the similar FIR on the same ground. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that they raised no objection against filing of final report as because she has settled the grievances in the interest of their child and they started conjugal life afresh even after the earlier incident. Hence, they had no objection in filing of the Final

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

Report in the earlier case.

¶23

I have gone through the contents of both the FIR as well as the documents including the Final Report, which go to show that the first FIR was filed as on 25.04.2017, raising allegation of certain assault and dowry demand and at that time, she was also ousted from his house. From the contention of the respondent/wife as well as the documents annexed, it would reveal that the said FIR ended at Final Report and the respondent never raised any objection against such filing of the Final Report and in that view of the matter, the first FIR is nonest at this stage.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that he will not pursue the first FIR any more, which has already ended at Final Report.

¶25

It is apparent from the contents of the second FIR that it was filed particularly after the assault which was made upon the respondent/wife on 28.08.2017, which is a new cause of action and she was again compelled to leave the house of her husband along with the child on 31.08.2017. That being so, the second FIR on new cause of action is not at all barred. In the second FIR (present one), she has categorically mentioned all about the fate of the earlier FIR that she has settled the earlier matter on the assurance of the husband/present petitioner to continue their marital life. There can be no denial that the offence under Section 498A is a continuing offence and such marital offence can recur at any point of time and one can file the FIR on new fresh cause of action when the earlier FIR ended at Final Report.

¶26

The given case as has been discussed above, the respondent/wife is no more interested to pursue the earlier case. There is no bar to proceed with the present FIR, which is subsequent. In that view of the matter, there is no scope of interference with the present investigation in regard to Satgaon PS Case No. 241/2017 and IO will investigate the matter to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.

¶27

Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of without interfering with the investigation as regards the aforesaid case.

¶28

Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶29

It is further directed that as the matter was sub judice before the Court challenging the aforesaid Satgaon PS Case No. 241/2017, the IO will not take any coercive measure against the petitioner.

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Prakash Protim Bora v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Protim 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Isha Haque Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Badruddin Ajmal Vs Rokibul Hussain

Bijumoni Nath Vs Gauri Shankar Saikia and Anr.

Diganta Sarma Vs the Punjab National Bank

Nilakshi Saikia Vs Nitu Pator and 2 Ors.

Niranjyoti Bania @ Cheng Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.