MITHILESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition has been filed inter alia praying for quashing the FIR dated 02-08-2015 as well as G.R. Case No. 729/2015 registered on the basis of the said FIR under Section 498(A) of the IPC. In the meantime the case has been charge sheeted on 20-09-2015 and by the order dated 21-11-2016, the learned Trial Court has also framed charge under Section 498(A) of the IPC against both the petitioners as accused persons. Therefore, the charge-sheet dated 20-09-2015 and the order dated 21-11-2016 have also been assailed by the petitioners by filing the present petition.

(2.) According to Mr. Dutta, the allegations made in the FIR even it taken on face value, do not make out a case under Section 498(A) of the IPC against both the petitioners. Further, by referring to the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant and her father, Mr. Dutta submits that there is no allegation made against the petitioner No. 1 Mithilesh Kumar Gupta who is the father in law of the informant. Learned Sr. counsel submits that there is no other material on record to frame charge against the petitioner No. 1. Under the circumstances, the learned Sr. counsel submits, that the order dated 21-11-2016 framing charge is wholly arbitrary, illegal and hence, liable to be set aside by this Court.

(3.) Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that there are sufficient materials against the respondent No. 2, i.e. the husband permitting the Trial Court to frame charge. Mr. Deka submits that two witnesses have already been examined in this case and therefore, the trial of the case should continue. According to Mr. Deka the question of setting aside the charge-sheet or the criminal proceeding, insofar as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, cannot arise in the eye of law at this stage. The learned counsel has, however, fairly submitted that there is no incriminating material against the father in law, i.e. the petitioner No. 1 in this case and therefore, he would not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner to set aside the charge framed against the petitioner No. 1.