Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Miss Shorifa Kharun on 29 March, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010059642022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./267/2022
MOHIBUL ISLAM AND 3 ORS
S/O SAMSUL HOQUE
R/O VILL- BAHALPUR
P.S. CHAPAR,
P.O. BAHALPUR
DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM
PIN-783371
2: SAMSUL HOQUE
S/O LATE JOSMAT ALI
R/O VILL- BAHALPUR
P.S. CHAPAR
P.O. BAHALPUR
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783371
3: MOHION KHATUN
W/O SAMSUL HOQUE
R/O VILL- BAHALPUR
P.S. CHAPAR
P.O. BAHALPUR
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783371
4: SHOMILA KHATUN
D/O SAMSUL HOQUE
R/O VILL- BAHALPUR
P.S. CHAPAR
P.O. BAHALPUR
Page No.# 2/3
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-78337
VERSUS
MISS SHORIFA KHARUN
W/O MOHIBUL ISLAM
D/O SHOHID ALI
PRESENT ADDRESS
VILL- BALAPARA
S.B.F. BRICK INDUSTRY
P.S. JOGIGHOPA
DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783382
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
29.03.2022 Heard Shri A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioners, who have filed this application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing the CR (DV) Case No. 60/2018 pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, North Salmara, Abhayapuri.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had initially lodged the aforesaid case before the learned SDJM, North Salmara and thereafter had also lodged Chapar PS Case No. 427/2019 registered under Section 498 (A) IPC. The petitioners have admitted that in the Chapar PS Case No. 427/2019, charge sheet has been submitted, being Charge Sheet No. 231/2019. The petitioners have also admitted that in the DV case, which is the subject matter of challenge, the petitioners have filed their written statement on 21.04.2018. On a specific query made by this Court, Shri Roshid, the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly admitted that the aforesaid DV case is presently at the stage of adducing of evidence.
Page No.# 3/3
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the DV case have been instituted only to harass the petitioners. He further submits that when another case is pending being Chapar PS Case No. 427/2019 under Section 498 (A) IPC between the same parties, the DV case cannot be allowed to continue and therefore the prayer has been made to quash the same.
4. The aforesaid submission, in the opinion of this Court is not only erroneous but also misconceived. Firstly, the DV case was admittedly instituted prior in point of time in which, the petitioners have not only submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court but have also filed their written statement of defence. The records reveal that apart from the written statement, a written objection against the petition filed for lump sum compensation has also been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly admitted that the DV case, as stated above, at the stage of adducing of evidence. Secondly, there is no legal bar for both the cases to parallelly proceed. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground for intervening with the aforesaid DV case.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors) has held as follows-
"23(iv). The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty)."
6. In that view of the matter, the instant petition is dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant