DIPIKA SAIKIA Vs. MRINALJYOTI BORDOLOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the help of this application, made under Section 482, Cr PC, the petitioners, who are accused in complaint Case No. 516/2008, have sought for quashing of taking of cognizance by the learned judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, under Sections 270 /273, IPC read Section 34, IPC and directing, by order, dated 03.12.2008, issuance of processes against the accused. As none had appeared on behalf of the accused -practitioners, this Court appointed Mr. M. Choudhary, learned counsel, as amicus curiae and has heard him. This Court has also heard Mr. K. Minir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

(2.) WHILE considering the present application, under Section 482, Cr. PC. it needs to be noted that the law with regard to quashing of criminal complaint is no longer res integra. A catena of judicial decisions has settled the position of law on this aspect of the matter. I may refer to the case R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 866 wherein the question, which arose for consideration, was whether a first information report can be quashed under Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held, on the facts before it that no case for quashing of the proceeding was made out. Gajendragadkar, J., speaking for the Court, observed that though, ordinarily, criminal proceedings, instituted against an accused must be tried under the provisions of the Code, there are some categories of cases, where the inherent jurisdiction of the Court can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. One such category, according to the Court, consists of cases, where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises and it is a matter merely of looking at the FIR or the complaint in order to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, said the Court, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal Court to be issued against the accused. From the case of R.P. Kapoor , it becomes abundantly clear that when a look into the contents of a complaint shows that the contents of the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted to be true in their entirety, do not disclose commission of offence, the complaint shall be quashed.

(3.) AS a corollary to what has been discussed above, it is also clear that if the contents of the complaint disclose commission of offence, such a complaint cannot be quashed.