Quashed

Utpal Doley v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC10 Nov 2022Crl.Pet./509/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside an impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It quashed the order regarding the petitioner, directing the lower court to permit his application for necessary sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before proceeding with trial, as the petitioner was a public servant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed regarding petitioner; permitted to file application for sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. before lower court.

Utpal Doley Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010099582019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet./509/2019

¶5

UTPAL DOLEY

¶6

S/O LATE DHANESWAR DOLEY, R/O GOLAGHAT TOWN, P.S.-BOKAKHAT, DIST-GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785612

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

2:RATUL BARUAH S/O PRAFULLA BARUAH P.S.-DERGAON DIST-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-78561

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P KATAKI

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER

¶13

10.11.2022

¶14

Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2; and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P.

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

for the State respondent no. 1.

¶17

In this petition, under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner - Sri Utpal Doley has put challenge the order dated 21.02.2019 passed in GR case No. 1548/2016 arising out of Pulibor PS case no. 150/2016, under sections 406/420 of IPC, pending before the learned court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate[s], Jorhat.

¶18

It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 21.02.2019 the learned court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner along with Sri Promod Barua, Sri Jadab Ch. Deka, Sri Madan Ch. Hazarika and Sri Rupak Saikia under sections 406/420 of IPC and issued process to them to appear before him to stand trial.

¶19

Mr. Kataki submits that Pulibor P.S. case No. 150/2016 under sections 406/420 IPC has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Ratul Barua on 02.06.2016, wherein he alleged alleging misusing of official position by the petitioner and mutation of a plot of land in the name of one Promod Barua measuring 6 Bighas 2 Kathas and 10 Lechas out of 13 Bighas 8 Kathas and 10 Lechas covering Patta No. 179 Dag Nos. 991,997,998,1022,1024,1030. Upon the said FIR Pulibor PS case no. 150/2016 under sections 406/420 of IPC has been registered and investigation is carried out. After completion of the investigation the IO had submitted charge sheet against the present petitioner, along with 4 others to stand trial. Upon the said charge sheet the learned court below has taken cognizance under sections 406/420 of IPC against the present petitioner along with 4 others vide impugned order dated 21.02.2019.

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

Mr. Kataki further submits that while taking cognizance of the learned court below has failed to consider that the petitioner is a public servant and sanction is required under section 197 of Cr.P.C. And since the petitioner - Sri Utpal Doley is a public servant, whatever he did in his official capacity, he is entitled to protection under section 197 of Cr.P.C. and as such Mr. Kataki contended to set aside the impugned order so far it relates to the petitioner is concerned and to remand the matter to the learned court below to reconsider the same. Mr. Kataki also contended for allowing the petitioner to file an application to that effect before the learned court below and to direct the learned court below to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶22

The submission of Mr. Kataki is not disputed by Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶23

Accordingly, as agreed by the learned counsel for both the parties the impugned order dated 21.02.2022, so far it relates to the petitioner is concerned stands set aside and quashed.

¶24

The petitioner is permitted to file an application before the learned court below. It is further provided that in the event of filing such an application the learned court below shall consider the same in accordance with law and passed necessary order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶25

In terms of above this criminal petition stands disposed of at this admission stage itself.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Utpal Doley v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Utpal Doley 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

Raja Boro Vs the State of Assam

Saikhul Rahman @ Saiful Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sahidul Islam @ Md. Sahidul Ali Vs the State of Assam

The Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Hitesh Baruah and 2 Ors.

The Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Nawajyoti Sharma and 3 Ors.

Joluk Ninu Vs Ajay Agarwal