Gauhati High Court
Syed Wahidur Rahman vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 25 March, 2021
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010062432020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./273/2020
SYED WAHIDUR RAHMAN
S/O LATE SADULLAH ALI, R/O KETEKIBARI, P.O.-BARAMBOI, P.S.-HAJO,
DIST-KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781382
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:MEHDI ALAM
S/O LATE ABDUL HOQUE
R/O PANIAKAHT
P.O. AND P.S.-DHULA
DIST-DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-78414
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S U AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA 25.03.2021:
Heard Mr. S. U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent no.
2.
Page No.# 2/3 The petitioner is an Extension Officer (Panchayat) at Raha Development Block under Nagaon Zilla Parishad in the district of Nagaon, Assam. An FIR was lodged against him by the respondent no. 2 and the case was registered under Sections 418/477/120(B) IPC.
Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent no. 1 has informed this Court that the prosecution could not file charge sheet because there is an interim order of this Court.
The allegation against the petitioner was that he had given authority to the respondent to collect toll and in that authority, the respondent was collecting toll. When he was nabbed by the police he, in turn, lodged an FIR against the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner was that he in his capacity as Extension Officer (Panchayat) at Raha Development Block under Nagaon Zilla Parishad had authorized the respondent no. 2 to collect toll but this authorization was cancelled by him on 26.09.2017 which prompted the respondent no. 2 to lodge the FIR.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that even from the FIR and the contents therein no offence under Section 477 IPC is made out. Section 477 IPC reads as under:
"477. Fraudulent cancellation, destruction, etc., of will, authority to adopt, or valuable security.--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, cancels, destroys or defaces, or attempts to cancel, destroy or deface, or secretes or attempts to secrete any document which is or purports to be a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or any valuable Page No.# 3/3 security, or commits mischief in respect of such documents, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
There is no allegation against the petitioner that he has either fraudulently or dishonestly forged a will. Allegations are quite different in nature.
The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 who is the complainant has made a statement before this Court that he wants to withdraw the complaint against the petitioner because of the compromise arrived between the parties and the offences i.e. Section 418 is compoundable.
In view of this, the interim order dated 23.06.2020 is hereby vacated. No case under Section 477 is made out. For the remaining offences, the parties will be free to move an application for compounding, in case the matter goes to court. The I.O. may proceed in accordance with law, as there is no point in keeping the matter pending before this Court.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant