Dismissed

Md. Nur Alom Sheikh v. Md. Abdul Kuddush Sk. and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Aug 2022Crl.Pet./129/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC regarding cheating and adultery allegations. The court observed that the petitioner remained inactive, failed to serve notices, and did not appear, leading to non-prosecution and dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed for non-prosecution due to inactivity and failure to serve notices.

Md. Nur Alom Sheikh Vs Md. Abdul Kuddush Sk. and 2 Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010107752016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet./129/2016

¶5

MD. NUR ALOM SHEIKH S/O NASIAT ULLAH SHEIKH, R/O RIMIJHIMI GHAT, P.O. AMINKATA, P.S. GOSSAIGAON, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783337

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

MD. ABDUL KUDDUSH SK. and 2 ORS. S/O LT. KAYSAR ALI SHEIKH, R/O RIMIJHIMIGHAT, P.O. AMINKATA, P.S. GOSSAIGAON, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783337

¶8

2:SHELIMA BEGUM W/O MD ABDUL KUDDUSH SK. R/O SATBIL PART-II P.O. BINNYAKHATA DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783336

¶9

3:THE STATE OF ASSA

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.R BORGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER

¶12

08.08.2022

¶13

The instant criminal petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC] has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of a First Information Report [FIR] lodged, on 02.01.2015, before the Officer In-Charge, Gossaigaon Police Station against him and one Musstt. Shelima Bibi [the respondent no. 2] by one Md. Abdul Kuddush Sk [the respondent

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

no. 1]. The said FIR had been registered as Gossaigaon Police Station Case no. 04/2015 for the offences under Sections 120B/497/406/506/34, Indian Penal Code [IPC].

¶16

In the FIR, the informant [the respondent no. 1] had stated that his marriage with the accused no. 1, Musstt. Shelima Bibi [the respondent no. 2] was socially solemnized about 14 years ago. Out of their wedlock, 3 [three] nos. of children were born. In order to facilitate proper education of their children, the informant started to reside in a rented house at Srirampur. The accused no. 1 had, in the meantime, established an illicit relationship with the accused no. 2 i.e. the petitioner. The informant had further alleged that at about 10-00 a.m. on 18.12.2014, his wife eloped from the rented house at Srirampur with the petitioner and in that connection, he had lodged an FIR intimating about missing of his wife. A further allegation was made to the effect that when his wife left the house voluntarily for the purpose of continuing the illicit relationship, she had also decamped with an amount of Rs. 8,000/and two bharis gold ornaments from the house of the informant. The informant had further mentioned that both the accused persons were residing in Delhi at the time of lodging the FIR. It was contended that as result of such acts on the part of the accused persons, irreparable damage had been caused to the reputation of the informant and necessary action from the police against the accused persons was sought for.

¶17

Assailing the said FIR on various grounds, the petitioner has preferred this criminal petition under Section 482, CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR registered as Gossaigaon Police Station Case no. 04/2015.

¶18

When the criminal petition was moved on 15.03.2016, notices were issued to the respondents and the petitioner was directed to take steps for service of notice upon the respondent no. 1 i.e. the informant and the respondent no. 2 i.e. the accused no. 1 in the FIR. But the petitioner did not take any steps for service of notice upon the respondents in the subsequent period. When the case was listed again on 08.12.2020, none had appeared to represent the petitioner. The petitioner was again directed to take steps for service of notice upon the respondents. As per the order dated 28.04.2020 of the Lawazima Court, the petitioner did not take steps for service of notice upon the respondents in

¶19

Page No.# 3/3

¶20

deference to the orders dated 15.03.2016 and 08.12.2020. The petitioner was again granted 10 [ten] days time to comply with the order dated 08.12.2020 failing which the case would be listed before the Court. The office note dated 10.05.2022 has reflected that no steps have been taken by the petitioner for service of notice upon the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 till date.

¶21

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner today on call. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam is, however, in attendance.

¶22

From the above facts, it transpires that the petitioner is not interested to pursue this criminal petition. In such view of the matter, this criminal petition stands dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

Md. Nur Alom Sheikh v. Md. Abdul Kuddush Sk. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Nur Alom Sheikh v. Md. Abdul Kuddush Sk. and 2 Ors.

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

Nur Jahan Begom Ahmed Vs M S Manivannan, IAS and Anr.

Hasanuzzaman Sheikh Vs Dr (Smti) Alka Bhargava and 3 Ors.

Chamida Khatun Vs M S Manivannan, IAS and Anr.

Baharul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Pramananda Deori Vs the State of Assam

Kironjoy Narzary and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam