Allowed¶33

Uday Sankar Senapati v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC6 Mar 2026Crl.Pet./348/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.Pet./348/2012 — Uday Sankar Senapati v. State of Assam & Anr. (Smt. Reetumoni Hazarika, Respondent No. 2/informant), Gauhati High Court, single judge: Mrs. Justice Shamima Jahan; order dated 07.03.2026. Quashing (S. 482 Cr.P.C.) of FIR Dispur P.S Case No.1734/2011 u/Ss. 376/312/493/417 IPC (rape/miscarriage/deceitful cohabitation/cheating) as an afterthought lodged only after breakdown of a long consensual relationship; no prior intention not to marry; FIR quashed; petition disposed of. No precedents cited; heard without case diary.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR registered as Dispur P.S Case No. 1734/2011 under Sections 376/312/493/417 IPC for the ends of justice; the petition stands disposed of. ¶33

Uday Sankar Senapati Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the FIR registered as Dispur P.S Case No. 1734/2011 under Sections 376/312/493/417 IPC for the ends of justice; the petition stands disposed of.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR registered as Dispur P.S Case No.1734/2011 under Sections 376/312/493/417 IPC, lodged by Respondent No. 2, should be quashed pursuant to the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Where, on the face of it, the cognizable offence is not made out, or the allegations in the FIR on bare perusal reflect afterthoughts on the part of the informant, the FIR can be quashed for the ends of justice.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The allegation of force was undermined by the informant's own FIR account: although she used the word 'force', she continued the relationship, became pregnant in December 2010, went with the petitioner to doctors for the abortion, and lodged no FIR until July 2011.

¶30

Key takeaways

The Court decided to take up the quashing application without the case diary (not produced since 2024 despite repeated calls) and without representation for Respondent No. 2, owing also to long pendency.obiter¶19
The petitioner had no prior intention not to marry Respondent No. 2 — he disclosed the relationship to her family and promised marriage once employed — but with the flux of time the parties broke up and are now married to their respective partners.ratio¶30
The FIR registered as Dispur P.S Case No. 1734/2011 under Sections 376/312/493/417 IPC stands quashed for the ends of justice.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. — Gauhati High Court (Mrs. Justice Shamima Jahan) quashed FIR, Dispur P.S Case No.1734/2011 u/Ss. 376/312/493/417 IPC, lodged by Respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. The FIR itself recorded a relationship since 2002 (known since childhood), vermillion and ring given accepting her as wife, and a promise to marry once employed; physical relations allegedly established 'by force' in September 2005, yet the relationship continued, she became pregnant in December 2010, the fetus was aborted with her consent on 28.12.2010, and no FIR was lodged until the petitioner announced (07.07.2011) he would marry another. Holding that on a bare perusal no cognizable offence was made out and the allegations were afterthoughts, and that the petitioner lacked prior intention not to marry (both parties now married to their respective partners and working as professors at Handique Girls College and Golaghat DR College), the Court quashed the FIR for the ends of justice and disposed of the petition. Application was heard without the case diary (unproduced since 2024) and without representation for Respondent No. 2.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010121172012

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./348/2012

¶6

UDAY SANKAR SENAPATI

¶7

SON OF BHUPEN CHANDRA SENAPATI PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KAWOIMARI GOHAIN GAON, P.O. KAWOIMARI GOHAIN GAON, P.S. TEOK, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785683.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

¶10

2:SMT. REETUMONI HAZARIKA D/O SRI SUREN HAZARIKA R/O VILL- AJARGURI P.O. NO. 2 KAWOIMARI DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS.J M KONWAR, MR.B D KONWAR,MSG GHOSH,MS.P CHOUDHURY,MR.R KALITA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : , MR.P HAZARIKA,MR.R HAZARIKA,MR.S SARMA,PP, ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 07.03.2026

¶17

Heard Ms. J. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

¶18

2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 28/08/2011 lodged by the Respondent No.2 before the Officer-in-Charge, Dispur Police Station, which was registered as Dispur P.S Case No.1734/2011, under Section 376/312/493/417 of the IPC.

¶19

3. At the outset, this Court holds that a case diary pertaining to the said Dispur police station case was called a number of times, but the same was not produced since the year 2024. And that the counsel for Respondent No.2, although had appeared initially in the said case, but later on there was no representation on her behalf. As such, this court decided to take up this application without a case diary as well as the representation on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and also because of the fact of long pendency of the instant case.

¶20

4. The FIR lodged on 24^th of August 2011, lodged by Respondent No. 2, reflects that she knew the petitioner since childhood as they studied in the same school and that from September 2002, onwards they entered into a love relationship. And that when both the parties were pursuing their graduation at respective places, the petitioner at Guwahati and the respondent No. 2 at Dergaon, their relationship turned into a serious love affair.

¶21

Page No.# 3/6

¶22

5. The informant further stated that the petitioner frequently goes and visits her at Dergaon and takes her to various places and even tried to have physical relationship with her, but then the respondent No. 2 somehow resisted from the same. The respondent also states that the petitioner had put vermillion on her head and gave her a ring accepting her as a wife. She also stated that petitioner had gone to her house on several occasions and disclosed their relationship and had promised to marry her once he gets a job. She further states that when she completed her master degree, the petitioner arranged her stay at Guwahati, and he paid the rent of the house where the Respondent No. 2 stayed for a number of months. And that on 25^th of September 2005, the petitioner is stated to have taken her to his rented house, where the petitioner is stated to have established physical relationship with her by force, even after that the petitioner and the informant continued their relationship, as it is seen from the FIR. The informant further stated that she became pregnant in December 2010 and that her fetus was aborted on 28^th of December 2010. It is seen that the said exercise was done with the consent of the respondent No.2. As she has stated in the FIR, that subsequent thereto, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had maintained cordial relations between themselves. It is only on 7^th of July, 2011 when the petitioner told Respondent No. 2 that he would marry another girl from Guwahati, the Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR on 24^th of August, 2011 alleging that petitioner had abused her in filthy language as well as his relatives. And also that the petitioner had fraudulently used her as his wife and established physical relationship with her by giving false promises, thereby committing breach of trust, and cheated her.

¶23

6. Ms. J. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the

¶24

Page No.# 4/6

¶25

ingredients of Section 376 or Section 312 or Section 493 or Section 417 are not attracted in the instant case by a bare reading of the said ejahar, inasmuch as both the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were major and they entered into physical relationship on their own. And as for removing her fetus, the Respondent No. 2 had herself admitted that they were in good relationship even after the said exercise. As far as Section 493 is concerned, the learned counsel submits that there was a promise to marry her initially, but then with time the parties broke up amongst them, and that now both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are happily married with their respective partners. She also submits that cheating also does not appear in the case, as there was no prior intention, that is, from the very beginning on the part of the petitioner to cheat respondent No. 2. Ms. J. Kowar, learned counsel also submits that the instant FIR has been lately filed, that is in the year 2011. On these grounds, Ms. J. Konwar prays for quashing of the said FIR.

¶26

7. Mr. M. P Goswami, learned Addl. P.P for the State, however, submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner in terms of establishing physical relationship with the respondent No. 2 by force, as well as making her pregnant and getting her fetus aborted in the year 2010. He also submits that the petitioner had used filthy language towards her and abused her, and as such, he submits that the FIR may not be quashed at this stage. He has also prayed that the case diary be looked into before the said application be disposed of.

¶27

8. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court holds as follows:-

¶28

It is no res integra that if a case is seen, that the same would not result in

¶29

Page No.# 5/6

¶30

any fruitful manner or on the face of it, the cognizable offence is not made out, or it is also seen that the allegations made in the FIR on a bare perusal of it reflects afterthoughts on the part of the informant, the same can be quashed for the ends of justice. It is seen that the Respondent No. 2 and the petitioner were having a love relationship since 2002, and knowing each other was much more beyond that that is from the childhood. The respondent No. 2. had stated in the FIR that the petitioner had even put vermilion on her head and gifted her a ring and accepted her as a his wife, when they were pursuing their degrees in respective colleges. She also stated that petitioner tried to establish physical relationship with her, but she resisted, and she did not speak of any force being applied on her at that juncture. Later on, although she used the word 'force' being applied to her when petitioner established physical relationship she still continued her relationship with him and that she became pregnant in December, 2010. She at that juncture did not lodge any First Information Report against the petitioner. Rather, she stated in the instant FIR that she and the petitioner went to different doctors to get her fetus aborted. She also stated that even after her abortion, they continued their relationship, but in the year 2011, more specifically, on July 7^th , when she came to know that petitioner was to marry another girl, she lodged the FIR alleging that she was abused by filthy language and that false promises were made. It seems that the allegation of false promises is incorrect in view of the fact that the petitioner went to the house of respondent No. 2 and disclosed their relationship to the family members of respondent No. 2 and promised that he would marry respondent No. 2 once he gets a job. Thus, it becomes clear that the petitioner did not have the prior intention not to marry the respondent No. 2, but with the flux of time, both the parties broke up. And that now they are married to their respective partners and

¶31

Page No.# 6/6

¶32

are living peacefully and it is also stated that both the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 are working as professors at Handique Girls College and Golaghat DR College, respectively.

¶33

9. In view of the said facts, this Court deems it fit that the FIR registered as Dispur P.S Case No. 1734/2011 under Section 376/312/493/417 of the IPC stands quashed for the ends of justice.

¶34

10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Uday Sankar Senapati v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Sankar Senapati v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hare Krishna Mondal Alias Hare Krishan Mondal and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Aminul Hoque Laskar Vs the State of Assam

Abu Sama and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Hashim Uddin Laskar Vs State of Assam

Jaideep Bhuyan Vs the State of Nagaland and Anr.

Niron Neog @ Niran Kumar Neog Vs the State of Assam and Anr.