YUMPI PADU Vs. FIROJ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By making this application, under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner herein, who is an accused in C. R. Case No. 6241/2005, has sought for setting aside the order, dated 1.10.2005, passed therein, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 447, 427, 341, 379 and 506, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. against the present petitioner and some others and also directing issuance of summons to them.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A. Sattar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposite party.

(3.) The law with regard to quashing of criminal complaint is no longer res integra. A catena of judicial decisions have settled the position of law on this aspect of the matter. I may refer to the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 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; but 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, consist of cases, where the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 (supra), it becomes abundantly clear that when a mere 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. As a corollary to what has been discussed above, it is also clear that if the contents of the complaint constitute offence, such a complaint cannot be quashed.