GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 23 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 22:

1. Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Uddin, the learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the criminal proceedings of C.R. Case No.654/2016 pending in the court of learned Munsiff No.2-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Goalpara, Assam.

3. The sole respondent is the complainant in C.R. Case No.654/2016. She claimed that she was married to Abdur Rakib Ansari on 27.08.2012. She took with her the Stridhan properties. After about six months of marriage, her husband was instigated by other petitioners and accordingly her husband demanded a car, furniture and a cash amount of Rs. 200,000/- from her. She failed to bring those items. For the aforesaid articles, her husband and relatives, started to harass her physically and mentally. The trial court took cognizance of the offences under Section 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

5. On a plain reading of the complaint, I find that there are elements of a prima facie criminal case against the petitioners. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOC5reyXKxdT7CFxLmV%2F1CnvBm%2B9a2oKmeW6UVhHYcWI7&caseno=Crl.Pet./128/2017&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010012912017&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.