Gauhati High Court
Mithilesh Kumar Gupta And Anr vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 14 June, 2019
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010077222018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet. 350/2018
1:MITHILESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.
S/O LATE B.P. GUPTA, R/O HOUSE NO. 555, TILA BOSTI, NH NO. 39, PS
KHATKHATI, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM
2: LOKESH BUPTA
S/O SHRI MITHILESH KUMAR GUPTA
R/O HOUSE NO. 555
TILA BOSTI
NH NO. 39
PS KHATKHATI
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY P.P. OF ASSAM
2:SANGITA GUPTA
W/O SHRI LOKESH GUPTA
R/O WARD NO. 7
BOKAJAN
(KRISHNANAGAR SUKAJAN)
PS BOKAJAN
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN-78610
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 14-06-2019 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State/ respondent No. 1 and Mr. B. Deka, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2.
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.
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.
Page No.# 3/4 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.
I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials available on record. As noted above, the informant, who is the wife of the petitioner No. 2, had lodged an FIR dated 02-08-2015 making certain allegations against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. her father-in-law and her husband, stating inter alia that she had been tortured for dowry and that the petitioners have treated her with cruelty.
Having regard to the materials available on record and the language employed in the FIR, I am of the view that present is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceeding, insofar as the charge brought against the petitioner No. 2 is concerned. However, I find force in the submission of Mr. Dutta that there is no material against the petitioner No. 1 i.e. the father-in-law, so as to subject him to trial in the criminal case. The order framing charge also does not refer to any materials based on which prima facie Page No.# 4/4 satisfaction of offence under Section 498 Cr.P.C. had been arrived at against the petitioner No. 1.
In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the learned court below has erred in law in framing charge against the petitioner No. 1, viz. Mithilesh Kumar Gupta. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21-11-2016 framing charge under Section 498(A) IPC against the accused Mithilesh Kumar Gupta, i.e. petitioner No. 1, stands set aside.
It is, however, made clear that the charge framed against the petitioner No. 2, viz. Lokesh Gupta is sustained and therefore, he would face trial.
Matter be proceeded in accordance with law.
Revision petition stands disposed of.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE GS Comparing Assistant