Pradip Paul vs State of Assam

Paran Kumar Phukan, J. - By means of this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the Charge-Sheet No. 328/2014 of G.R. Case No. 1551/2013 corresponding to Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 676/2013 under Sections 120(B)/406/420/387/494/34 of the IPC, which has been registered on an FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2, Sanu Ghosh, alleging therein that the petitioners entered into a conspiracy by performing his marriage with the daughter of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 suppressing the fact that she was earlier married to one Sankar Mandal.

It was also alleged that the daughter of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Ananya Paul, soon after the marriage started misbehaving with him and misappropriated amounts entrusted to her and ultimately, she left his house. The accused petitioners used to threaten him and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from him by putting him in fear of arrest and detention.

Tinsukia police conducted investigation and on completion of the same submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused petitioners and Ananya Paul under Sections 120(B)/406/420/387/494 IPC.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on receipt of the Charge-Sheet took cognizance against the accused petitioners and made over the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tinsukia. On appearance of the accused petitioners, copy was furnished to them and the learned Court was pleased to fix a date for consideration of charge and at this stage, the petitioners filed this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the Charge-Sheet and for discharging the accused petitioners from the case.

I have heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the accused petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and also Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and perused the materials placed before me including the lower Court records.

While denying the allegations brought against them by the respondent No. 2, the learned counsel appearing on their behalf submits that there was misunderstanding between the respondent No. 2 and the daughter of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and due to this reason, FIR has been filed by respondent No. 2. The petitioners are not at all involved in the case and they have been falsely implicated by the respondent No. 2. They had no knowledge that Ananya Paul was married to somebody else earlier. Had it been in their knowledge, they would not have approached the respondent No. 2 for performing marriage with Ananya Paul. It was also denied that they threatened the respondent No. 2 and tried to extort money or demanded money from him. It has also been mentioned in the petition that the Investigating Officer has mechanically framed the charges against the petitioners and as such, the Charge-Sheet No. 328/2014 is liable to be quashed.

Controveting the submission, Mr. A K Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that all the petitioners visited the house of the respondent No. 2 for performing marriage of Ananya Paul with him knowing fully well that she was earlier married to one Sankar Mandal. When the matter came to light, Ananya Paul went back to her parents house and in collusion with them filed the false case against the respondent No. 2 and his mother and thereafter, started demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- putting him in fear of arrest.

It is further submitted that under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court has no power to quash a criminal proceeding and the power should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and only in rarest of rare cases. He further submits that the FIR disclosed commission of offence by the petitioners and police also after proper investigation submitted Charge-Sheet. Court has taken cognizance against the accused petitioners. Under the facts and circumstances, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that the case is in the stage of framing of charge by the Court and the accused petitioners shall get ample opportunity to argue their case at the time of consideration of charges.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajanlal and Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and R.P. Kapoor v. State of Panjab AIR 1960 SC 866, submitted that quashing of an First Information Report or a complaint is possible:

"(a) When the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as true, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused,

(b) When the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and/or make out a case against the accused, and

(c) When the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of such absurd and inherently improbable allegations, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."

It is also well settled that in a quashing proceeding, it is not, within the ambit of the powers of the High Court, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to determine the truth, veracity, correctness or otherwise of the accusations made in the FIR or a complaint. In view of the settled proposition, in the present case also, this Court has to proceed on the assumption that the allegations made in the FIR are true and then to decide whether the contents thereof as assumed to be true disclose commission of any offence under the Indian Penal Code.

In the present case, the main accusation of the informant in the FIR is that the accused petitioners entered into a conspiracy and performed his marriage with Ananya Paul, daughter of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 knowing fully well that she was earlier married to on Sankar Mandal. It has also been alleged that the accused petitioners foisted a false case against him and his mother and thereafter, started demanding money to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- putting him in the fear of arrest and detention. The case is in the stage for consideration of charge by the Trial Court and charge is not yet framed. It would not be appropriate at this stage to give a finding regarding involvement of the accused petitioners in the commission of the crimes alleged to have been committed. If the allegations are assumed to be true then obviously, the involvement of the accused petitioners cannot be ruled out at this stage.

In my considered view and in the backdrop of the accusation made in the FIR, it would be appropriate if the matter is left to be decided by the Trial Court at the time of consideration of charge. The accused petitioners will get ample opportunity to agitate the matter before the Trial Court. Consequently, I do not find it a fit case to quash the Charge-Sheet in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and as such, the petition stands dismissed and the revision fails. Send down the LCR along with copy of the judgment to the learned Courts below for information and necessary action.