PARTHA SAHA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr S M Abdullah P, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr R R Kaushik learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Assam.

(2.) The petitioner has filed his application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('CrPC', for short), seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of G R Case No. 5418 of 2016, arising out of Barpeta Road PS. Case No. 452 of 2016, registered under Ss. 420/376/120(B)/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and also the charge sheet being C S No. 286 of 2016 dtd. 31/12/2016. The case is pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM for short) at Barpeta. The State of Assam and the informant are arrayed as respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 respectively.

(3.) The FIR unfolds that for the last three years, since 22/10/2016, the informant X was in love with the petitioner Sri Partha Saha. The petitioner induced the informant into physical relationship with false promises of marriage. On 16/10/2016, the petitioner took the informant to Guwahati, promising to marry her at Kamakhya Mandir and he kept her in Assam Lodge, by introducing themselves to be husband and wife. On the same day at about 02:30 pm, the police raided the lodge and took them into custody. The police from the Jalukbari Police Station raided the lodge and took them into custody. In the Jalukbari Police Station, the petitioner in presence of the police personnel and the family members of the informant, promised to marry the informant. However, on 17/10/2016, the accused No. 2, Bhambal Saha, in collusion with the petitioner, hatched up a conspiracy and the petitioner fled away without marrying the informant. On 22/10/2016, the informant went to the petitioner's house but Bhambal Saha rebuked the informant and slapped her in presence of the petitioner and his father Guru Das Saha, who is also arrayed as accused No. 3 in the FIR. Bhambal Saha, accused No. 2 also tugged at the informant's hair and dragged her out of the petitioner's house. An FIR regarding this incident was lodged by the informant-respondent No. 2 herein, and investigation commenced. The IO submitted charge sheet against the petitioner, whereas the other accused named in the FIR were not sent up for trial.