Alhaj Dr. Md. Meraj Alam vs Mrs. Rehena Begum

The present application has been preferred by the accused petitioner under section 482 CrPC challenging the impugned order of taking cognizance

dated 02.01.2017 and the entire proceeding pertaining to CR Case No. 717/2016 now pending in the Court of JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

Heard Ld. counsel for Mr. G.N Sahawalla for the petitioner and the learned counsel Mr. K. N. Chaudhury for the respondent.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was married to the respondent on 11.01.1996 as per ritual, and custom but after the marriage the petitioner

came to know that the respondent was earlier married with one Saukat Ali on 11.6.1987 and the said marriage was not dissolved and she has entered

into the marriage with the petitioner by suppressing her earlier marriage. On being asked, the respondent stoutly denied the same. The respondent as

well as her family members pressurized the petitioner to stay in their house as Gharjowai and the revealment of the fact, the relation became bitter and

the family members even used to assault the petitioner for which the petitioner lodged an FIR which got registered at Dispur PS Case No. 172/1997Â

and also subsequently file divorce case before Family Court vide FC (c) 1998 which was however withdrawn on amicable settlement. The relation

between the parties no more remained cordial and in the year 1999 the respondent left the house of the petitioner. Due to such strain relation as well

as threat from the family of in-laws, the petitioner decided to terminate the marital relation and approached to Sadar Kazi, Kamrup in the year 2011

where their marriage was solemnized and after sending of notice of Talaq for 3 (three) times, to which the respondent did not respond finally divorce

was granted by the Sadar Kazi as on 18.8.2011. After serving of 1st notice of Talaq the respondent and family members assaulted the petitioner in

presence of junior doctor and officials and staffs demanding to withdraw the notice of Talaq with a threatening to kill him for which he lodged an FIR

before Bhangagarh PS which was registered as Bhangagarh PS Case No. 123/2011 (GR 4679/2011). The petitioner also filed a complaint case No.

2512/2015 alleging bigamy on the part of the respondent. Due to the threatening and demand of money of Rs. 2 crores and other property etc from the

petitioner for giving notice of divorce, by the family members of the respondent, the petitioner filed Bhangagarh PS Case No. 261/2015 u/s

120(b)/143/387/292/506 IPC.

After receipt of notice for Talaq, the respondent began to file different type of cases against the petitioner as mentioned below:

FC (c) 545/2011 before the Family Court for declaring the divorce certificate granted by the Kaji as void.

All women cases u/s 498A IPC which was registered as GR Case No. 4393/2011

Complaint case No. 124M/2011 u/s 12 of the Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act.

FC (Crl.)Â 67/2013 u/s 125 CrPC seeking maintenance.

Bhangagarh PS Case No. 149/2015 u/s 468/471 IPC alleging that the petitioner has forged his PRC.

Hatigaon PS Case No. 315/2015 u/s 420/406/423/468/34 IPC alleging that accused petitioner forged the marriage certificate of the respondent and

the petitioner.

WP(c) No. 1263/2016 alleging that police has not conducted proper investigation in respect of Hatigaon PS Case No. 315/2015.

Crl. Pet. No. 179/2016 for quashing the CR Case No. 2512/2015 filed by the petitioner u/s 494/495 IPC.

Crl Pet. No. 154/2016 for quashing the Family Court given in Bhangagarh PS case No. 149/2015 u/s 468/471 IPC.

Crl. Pet. No. 113/2016 for quashing the Bhangagarh PS Case NO. 161/2015 filed by the petitioner u/s 120(b)/143/387/292(A)/506 IPC.

Respondent also keeps filing RTI application in the name of their family members in the health department and medical college hospital seeking

details of the petitioner which could be used against petitioner.

Lastly, she filed CR Case No. 717/2016 u/s 468/471 IPC before the JMFC, Kamrup (M) alleging that petitioner has forged the marriage certificate

of respondent and Soukat Ali.

It is contended by the petitioner as the respondent has already filed an ejhar on the same allegation that the petitioner has forged the marriage

certificate of the respondent in connivance with Sadar Kaji on the basis of which Hatigaon PS Case No. 315/2015 has already been registered and as

against same the respondent has also preferred a WP (c) 1263/2016 seeking an enquiry by CID which is pending and at this juncture, filing of the CR

Case No. 717/2016 on the similar allegation is not at all maintainable. The petitioner prayed for quashing of the aforesaid CR Case No. 717/2016 now

pending before the Ld. JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati contending inter alia that the petitioner has already revealed all the facts in the FC (C) Case

No. 545/2011 and FC (Crl.) 67/2013 (filed by the respondent) by way of written statement and adducing evidence (including the Kazi) and also by

producing the marriage certificate of the respondent along with Saukat Ali that the respondent entered into marriage in the year 1987 with said Saukat

Ali prior to marriage with the present petitioner. In that context, the evidence of the petitioner as DW-1 and the evidence of the Sadar Kazi as DW-2

vide annexure IX, XÂ and XI has been referred and it has been submitted that despite knowing all about the evidence of Kazi, the present complaint

has been filed due to the personal battle between the parties since the petitioner has divorced the respondent, she has wreaking vengeance upon the

petitioner with an intention to harass the petitioner and make his life measureable by filing false and frivolous complaint. The respondent deliberately

did not mention any number of the case that was filed earlier by her and pending between the parties. In Hatigaon PS Case No. 315/2015 where the

respondent raised the allegation of forgery in respect of divorce certificate dtd. 18.8.2011 between the parties, a final report has been submitted

recently.

Further it contends that the alleged marriage certificate between the respondent and said Saukat Ali was submitted by petitioner before the Family

Court and was exhibited also and as such cognizance taken by Magistrate is barred u/s 195 (1) (b) (ii) CrPC. The respondent before filing of the said

complaint case 717/2016 filed two similar Crl. Cases being Hatigaon PS Case No.315/2015 u/s 420/406/423/468/34 IPC against which the petitioner is

before this Court in WP (c) 1263/2016 and Bhangagarh PS Case No. 149/2015 u/s 468/471 against which respondent preferred Crl. Pet. 154/2016

when the police submitted final report. The petitioner was acquitted in the Case No. 4393/2011 from the charge u/s 498 (A) IPC. The case under the

Domestic Violence vide 124/2011 was quashed by this Court by order dated 10.5.2012 and the maintenance case filed by the respondent in 2013 is

still pending. Moreover, the case filed by the petitioner vide CR Case No. 2512/2015 u/s 494/495 IPC is still pending before the Court. Accordingly it

is submitted that the present complaint case is filed subsequently so as to frustrate the bigamy case already filed by the petitioner and there was no

bonafide on the part of the respondent in approaching the Court and the Ld. Court has taken cognizance without applying the mind which is not

maintainable in the given background of the case as well as in the eye of law. The petitioner herein has annexed all the above referred documents

along with his petition, which are not disputed by respondent in their affidavit.

The respondent has filed affidavit-in-opposition contending inter alia that the petitioner stayed in their house in the year 1996 and on the basis of

false PRC, he got admitted in the MBBS Course and after completion of the MBBS he married her on 11.1.1996 and their marriage was duly

registered in the office of Sadar Kazi and out of their wedlock one son was born on 9.8.2002 but by demanding landed property and cash money the

petitioner began to the torture her and finally ousted her along with the son from his official quarter for non fulfillment of his demand then she took

shelter in her parental house. While saying so she has not mentioned about the manner of torture and about the time, date and year etc. and when she

was ousted. Admitting about filing of all the cases as mentioned by the petitioner, it has been submitted that divorce certificate dated 18.8.2011 was

procured by the petitioner with the assistance of the Kazi and the certificate was issued without following the proper procedure of Talaq. She has

challenged the said Talaq before the Family Court and the divorce certificate has been set aside by the Family Court as on 20.7.2017. It is stated that

the petitioner has also filed a case seeking custody of his son vide FC (G) 142/2012 which is pending. Thus, in her affidavit, she has admitted all about

the cases that has been filed by her against the respondent and also the cases that has been filed by the petitioner against her. In the Family Court, she

has challenged her divorce certificate issued by the office of the Kazi which is a different issue altogether.

Regarding the prime issue before this Court about the fake marriage certificate between the respondent and one Saukat Ali. It is the case of the

respondent that the petitioner in collusion with Kazi has prepared the said marriage certificate on 11.6.1987 and Kazi has also issued a divorce

certificate on 25.7.1994, fraudulently for wrongful gain whereas she never married said Saukat Ali and hence she has filed the aforesaid complaint

case No. 717/2016. She has categorically denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition. It is stated that the Sadar Kazi has given false

evidence in Family Court Case No. 454/2011 and Kazi has issued forged document knowing fully well the documents are false and fabricated. The

petitioner has obtained such false document and used the same in evidence. Accordingly it is submitted that there is no error in taking cognizance in

the impugned order by the Court in CR Case No. 717/2016.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such a complaint case filed by the respondent after a long/several rounds of litigation between

the parties and that too by suppressing all the cases, evidence so far adduced before the Court of law is not sustainable. The said Saukat Ali which

has been examined by the respondent as a preliminary witness in the said CR Case 717/2016 who has now denied the marriage between the parties in

fact, has already given statement in the GR Case No. 4393/2011 u/s 498(A) IPC u/s 161 CrPC admitting about his marriage with the respondent in

which case the petitioner was acquitted from the charge. In another case where the respondent has challenged the authenticity of divorce certificate

between the petitioner and respondent in Hatigaon PS Case No. 315/2015 has ended in final report. Thus, referring to all the matters on record and

the evidence so far adduced by the petitioner side in the Family Court matters and also in view of pendency of CR Case No. 2515/2015 filed by the

petitioner u/s 494/495 IPC against the respondent contending about her earlier marriage, the present CR Case has been filed only to frustrate the said

case and to use the same as a defence only. The evidence of the Sadar Kazi given in the Family Court has been pressed into who has specifically

stated about the marriage between the respondent and said Saukat Ali and urged this Court to look into the said evidence for proper appreciation of

the matter.

Per contra Mr. K. N. Choudhury for on behalf of the respondent has made a submission that there is no illegality in the aforesaid order while

taking cognizance. Only after making an enquiry u/s 202 CrPC, the Court has taken cognizance. Another contention as regard the issuance of

marriage certificate. It has been contended that the Kazi in his evidence before Family Court stated that Pin code of Hatigaon has been re-numbered

from Guwahati 6 to Guwahati 38 in the year 2000 which shows the subsequent documents are manufactured after 2000 and the petitioner herein by

manipulating documents and by managing the police personnel has managed false evidence. According to the learned senior counsel for the

respondent the marriage document has been obtained in collusion with the Kazi and both the petitioners as well as the Kazi has committed the offence

u/s 468/471 IPC and as such provision of u/s 195(1) (b) (ii) CrPC is not attracted. Further, it contends that Hatigaon PS Case No. 315/2015 is no way

connected with the present complaint case which was filed on different cause of action and hence the Ld. Magistrate has committed no error in taking

cognizance against the petitioner.

I have given due consideration to the rival submission of both the parties and also perused the document annexed. Let us first take note of the fact

that the present petition has been filed under the Provision of Section 482 CrPC and not as a revisional petition. The scope of ambit of both the

provisions is well defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure. While under the revisional jurisdiction the Court has limited power to look into the

legality, correctness and propriety or otherwise order and judgment of a Court and unless there is gross illegality resulting injustice to litigates, the

revisional Court cannot appreciate the evidence on record; whereas the scope and ambit of Sec. 482 of the Court is wider enough and not control by

any of the provision under the Code and aim and object of the provision is to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice.

Let us appreciate the provision a little bit detail. The inherent power of Sec. 482 CrPC envisages 3 (three) circumstances under which inherent

jurisdiction may be exercised namely (i) to give effect to an order of the Code (ii) to prevent the abuse of process of Court and (iii) to otherwise

secure the ends of justice. While exercising power under the section, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision but equally such

jurisdiction has to be exercised carefully and sparingly, with circumspection. In CBI Vs. K.M Sasran 2008 4 SCC 471, it has been held that power

possessed by the High Court u/s 482 and the Code very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise, to render

substantial justice to the parties. Inherent power can be invoked when special circumstances are made out and the High Court may exercise the

power relating to cognizance of offence to prevent abuse of process of Court (State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SUPP (1335) CBI Vs.

Ravishankar Srivastava AIR 2006 SC 2872).

The power of provision of Sec. 482 CrPC is wide enough and not controlled by the provision of Sec. 397 CrPC. The inherent power u/s 482 CrPC

is wide enough and if judiciously and consciously exercised, it can take care almost all the situations where interference by the High Court became

necessary on account of delay in the proceeding or for any other reason amounting to operation or harassment in any trial enquiry or proceeding. In

the appropriate cases the High Court has power for quashing the FIR and investigation and terminating criminal proceeding if case of abuse of

process of law is made out and for the purpose the Court can also examined whether any legal evidence justifying conviction.

The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence afresh as if sitting in appeal unless evidence found

perverse and unreasonable. The Court while exercising revsional jurisdiction cannot enter into a detailed discussion of merit and demerit of the case,

but can only interfere if such findings is based on no evidence or any other error of law. It gives no power to straight right the error or illegality. As a

broad proposition revisional interference may be justified a where (a) decision is grossly erroneous (b) there is no compliance of provison of law (c)

finding of fact effecting the decision is not based on evidence (d) material evidence of parties is not considered (e) judicial discretion is exercised

arbitrarily and perversely.

In course of the submission, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Choudhury has submitted that there is no illegality in the order while taking

cognizance by the Court as same has been undertaken after making an enquiry u/s 202 CrPC. Such a submission would be proper if the matter

relates to revision u/s 397 CrPC against an order of taking cognizance. But the present petition has been preferred under the provision of inherent

power u/s 482 CrPC. As has been discussed above, the scope and ambit of both the provisions are quite distinct & different and in fact, scope of

inherent power u/s 482 is much wider than the revisonal jurisdiction.

Guided by the provision of law as mentioned above let us appreciate the matter on hand. Admittedly, the litigation is between husband and divorce

wife and there is no dispute as regard the series of cases filed by the parties against each other (as mentioned above). To appreciate the whole matter

we have to look into the affairs between the parties which would go to show that they are in serious litigation. We may take note that every case had

a given background which prompted a person to lodge allegation against the other and of course a person has a liberty to file a case to raise

grievances, against a wrong doer on the pretext of law. The crux of the matter lies, in all eventualities Court of law can be asked to take action against

a wrongful act of a person, which would constitute of an offence in legal parlance. The authenticity of such allegation is the “hall mark†to initiate

such criminal proceeding in a Court of law.

Reverting to the facts in hand it is to be noted that the parties are in separation since 1999/2000 and according to the petitioner due to suppression

of earlier marriage by the respondent/wife there was serious dispute between the parties and as he raised the issue, the petitioner was harassed by the

respondent as well as her family like anything for which he have to lodged case against the family of the respondent and ultimately he obtained a

divorce from the office of the Kazi as per Muslim rites in the year 2011. The respondent although admitted about their separation but she has not

explained properly as to the reasons for their separation except some vague allegation of dowry demand. Facts to be noted that the respondent never

came forward to claim any sort of relief like maintenance, residence etc. etc. till 2011. But as soon as the divorce was granted to the petitioner, she

began to file cases one after another against the petitioner since 2011. There is no any explanation about her silence for not filing any case earlier

since 1999/2000 to 2011 (even after long separation) which bears a much impact on the issue.

As there is no dispute regarding the evidence adduced by the petitioner and his other witness before the Family Court, so there is no difficulty to

look into the evidence that has been adduced by the petitioner. Having regard to the various facts and circumstances as brought to the notice of this

Court, I deem it necessary to examine the evidence of both the parties, given in this cases also. Petitioner in the said case No. FC (c) 545/2011 before

the Family Court, as DW-1 has stated that he came to know about the earlier marriage of the respondent with one Saukat Ali and he produced the

marriage certificate and Kabilnamma through R.T.I which he exhibited as Exhibit1 and Exhibit-2. It is to be noted that the respondent has not cross-

examined the petitioner challenging the said documents. No any suggestion was given to him denying the execution of said documents. However, on a

query made by the respondent side, it has been replied by the petitioner that the exhibit-1 was obtained through RTI application from the Office of

Kazi.

On the next, the other witness the Kazi who happended to testify the execution of said marriage deed exhibit-1 and exhibit-2, appearing as DW-2,

in his evidence has stated that the petitioner submitted an application for divorce of his wife in his office on 2.4.2011 and after serving three notices

upon the respondent (exhibit-A, B & C) ultimately divorce certificate was issued by him on 18.8.2011. The said witness further has stated that on

verification of document in his office, he found that Rehena Begum was earlier marriage to Saukat Ali, S/o Md. Rajjak Ali on 11.6.1987 in presence of

witnesses namely Md. Hamid Ali S/o Lt. Habibulla, R/o Lakhtokiya Panbazar, Guwahati and Md. Gaffar , S/o Abdul Kayum, R/o Lakhtokia

Panbazar, Guwahati but however did not find any divorce registration of Saukat Ali in his office.

The learned counsel for the respondent is hammering on the cross-examination of said witness while he stated that he had knowledge of

Rehena’s earlier marriage and he has not issued the marriage certificate of Rehena. Accordingly it is contended that he has no knowledge about

the marriage between the parties. But the said challenge of the respondent bears no consequence while the said witness in later apart of cross-

examination has stated that he has gone through the office record to say about the marriage between the parties but he did not find any divorce

certificate. Moreso, he was appointed as Kazi in the year 1989 while as per record marriage took place in the year 1987 so having of no personal

knowledge about the marriage in the year 1987 is quite apparent. Moreover what he has stated is from record of his office.

From the evidence of both the witnesses discussed above, it is found that the above marriage certificate was obtained by the petitioner from the

office of the Kazi/ DW-2 through RTI application and he was not author of the said certificate nor he has any signature upon the same so as to hold

him as a maker of the document. On the other hand, the respondent knowing all above, has filed the impugned complaint case u/s 468 IPC projecting

the petitioner as the maker of the said documents.

What amounts to forgery is defined u/s 463 IPC so it is pertinent to look as the definition of forgery.

Sec. 463 Forgery- “Whoever makes any false documents [ or false electronic record] or part of a document [or electronic record,] with intent

to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into

any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.â€​

   To understand the meaning of making false document as defined in the Section it is necessary to discuss the section 464 IPC.

Sec. 464 Making a false document-Â A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-

“First- Who dishonestly or fraudulently-

(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;

(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;

(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;

(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed

that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by

the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or

Secondly.- Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any

material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such

person be living or dead at the time of such alteration;

Thirdly.- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic

signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception

practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.

Explanation 1.â€" A man’s signature of his own name may amount to forgery.

Explanation 2.â€" The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real

person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to

forgery.

Explanation 3.â€" For the purposes of this section, the expression “affixing electronic signatureâ€​ shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d)

of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.â€​

Further Section 465 IPC provides for punishment of forgery and Section, 468 IPC prescribed punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating.

Section 468 IPC read as follows:

“ Whoever commits forgery, intending that the (document or electronic record forged) shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to 7 (seven) years and shall also be liable to fine.â€​

23.   The combined reading of aforesaid provision make it clear that while the section 463 defines the offence of forgery and the Section 464

provides as to what amounts to making false document for the purpose of committing forgery u/s 463 IPC. Further Sec. 465 provides for punishment

of commission of forgery whereas Section 468 provides that whoever commits forgery (makes false document) with an intention for cheating is liable

to be punished as mentioned above. In order to make out an offence either 465 IPC or 468 IPC first it has to be shown that forgery was committed

u/s 463 IPC. In Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and another etc. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeals No. 359-360 of 2010 in Para

(20) elaborating all above it has been held that an offence of forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it or signed it. Relevant portion of

the judgment extracted below:

· Para 25

“ Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e., referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we

observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a

document is different than causing it to be made. As

Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence

under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not

liable for the offence of forgery.

· Para 26

“The definition of “false document†is a part of the definition of “forgery. Both must be read together. ‘Forgery’ and ‘Fraud’

are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts.â€​Â

· Para 29

“Section 464 of the IPC makes it clear that only the one who makes a false document can be held liable under the aforesaid provision. It must be

borne in mind that, where there exists no ambiguity, there lies no scope for interpretation.â€​Â

In the aforesaid judgment decision of the Md. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another (2009) SCC 751 has also been referred. Relevant

portion of the observation of Md.

Ibrahim is quoted below;

   “ a person is said to have made a ‘false document’ if

(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or

(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or

(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception or from a person not in control of his senses.â€​

Reverting to the matter in hand, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is not the maker of the said marriage deed between the respondent and

another and ingredient of the offence u/s 463 IPC will not be attracted against him. Said document was issued from the office of Kazi bearing

registration No., date and seal of Kazi. It is a different position altogether that Family Court has not accepted valid divorce between the parties as on

18.8.2011 (which was under challenge) but fact remains that Kazi has given evidence about due execution of marriage certificate between the

respondent Soukat Ali as on 11.6.1987 in the office of Kazi, which is not yet disproved by respondent. More importantly, the petitioner has already

lodged complaint case bearing CR No. 2512/2015 for bigamy against the respondent and during pendency of said case, filing of present CR Case No.

717/2016 can apparently stated to be filed only to resist the aforesaid case.Â

In Bhajan Lal Case (State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Hon’ble Supreme Court enumerated the categories of cases,

by way of illustration, wherein the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent power under section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the

Constitution of India to prevent abuse of the process of court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. In para 102, these categories of cases are

listed as under: (SCC pp. 378-79)

“(1)   Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in

their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155

(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and theevidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted

by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherentlyimprobable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever

reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Codeor the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is

instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing

efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or wherethe proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.â€​

 In my considered opinion, the case pleaded by the petitioner, and as argued by Mr. G. N. Sahawalla, squarely falls within the ambit of

Propositions 7.

Expressing anxiety over such malicious institution of criminal cases, Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1993 (1)SCC 561 held as below-

 “The Court should not be indirectly used as an instrumental by anyone to attain or obtain any beneficial achievement which one could not get

through normal legal process. If anyone approaches the Court with ulterior motive, designed to wrench some personal benefit by putting another within

the clutches of law and using the Court as a devise only for that end but not to get any legal remedy, then in such a situation the Court should heavily

come upon such a person and see that the authority of the Court is not misused.â€​

  The same position is reiterated in another pronouncement in 2013 (9)SCC 245, Ravinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. in following words-

 “The inherent power of the Court in dealing with an extraordinary situation is in the larger interest of administration of justice and for preventing

manifest injustice being done. Thus, it is a judicial obligation on the Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice and to prevent

continuation of unnecessary judicial process. It may be so necessary to curb the menace of criminal prosecution as an instrument of operation of

needless harassment. A person cannot be permitted to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. Ex debito justitiae is in built in the inherent

power of the Court and the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which the courts exist. Thus, it becomes the paramount duty

of the Court to protect an apparently innocent person, not to be subjected to prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable complaint.â€​

  In the envil of legal proposition discussed above and in the given background of factual matrix of the case, necessary corollary would follow that

continuation of such criminal proceeding is against the interest of justice and amount to abuse of process of law. Under the circumstances the entire

proceeding of C.R. Case No. 717/2016 pending before the learned JMFC, Kamrup(M), Guwahati hereby quashed and set aside.

  The petition stand disposed of accordingly.