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 respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing the proceedings of C.R. Case No.671/2016 pending in the court of Munsiff Magistrate No.1, Goalpara.

3. Respondent is the complainant in the C.R. Case No.671/2016. She was married to the petitioner Abdur Rakib Ansari on 27.08.2012. She started her matrimonial life in the house of her husband. Her parents gave her furniture, ornaments etc. as stridhan.

4. After six months of marriage, at the instigation of the second petitioner Smti. Monowara Khatun (mother-in-law), her husband started to harass her physically and mentally. Her husband demanded a sum of Rs. 200,000/-, a car, and other furniture. The respondent failed to bring those items.

5. On 20.07.2014, the present petitioners again harassed her for want of a car, furniture and a cash amount of Rs. 200,000/-.

6. On 10.09.2014, the father of the respondent asked the petitioners to return the articles which he gave to his daughter at the time of her marriage. The petitioner allegedly refused to return those articles. Therefore, on 20.10.2014, the respondent filed the complaint case being C.R. Case No.1324/2014 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara. Unfortunately, on 02.07.2016, the said case was dismissed for default in appearance.

7. Therefore, the present complaint case has been filed praying for recovery of the stridhan properties.

8. The trial court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Abdur Rakib Ansari. The respondent prayed for issuing a search warrant to recover the stridhan properties. But the trial court refused to do so on the ground that there was no immediate danger of any type of damage to stridhan properties.

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

10. On a plain reading of the complaint, I find elements of a prima facie criminal case against the petitioner Abdur Rakib Ansari. 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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOCt12zZ1UjNNpjnwkm2pDjWgT5RKeYEzZS0QCcAHqG5j&caseno=Crl.Pet./728/2017&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010038542017&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.