GUWAHATI, India, June 24 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 26:

1. Heard Mr. A. M. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state as well as Mr. N. Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae, who was appointed by this Court to assist the Court in this case.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Jume Begum Laskar, (2) Karim Uddin @ Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, (3) Rohim Uddin Barbhuiya, praying for quashing of the FIR dated 01.08.2023, filed by the respondent No. 2, Noor Uddin Barbhuiya, on the basis of which, Katigorah P.S. Case No.110/2023 under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of this Criminal Petition, in brief, are that the petitioner No. 1 is the wife of petitioner No. 2, and the petitioner No. 3 is the elder brother of petitioner No. 2. On 01.08.2023, one Noor Uddin Barbhuiya had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Katigorah Police Station, naming therein two accused persons (the petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3) inter-alia, alleging that when the first informant was away from his house, at Meghalaya, for the purpose of livelihood, the accused No. 1, Karim Uddin @ Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, took away his wife, Jume Begum Laskar, during his absence. It was also alleged that at the time of taking, his wife, the five years old son of the informant was also taken by the accused No. 1, along with some cash and gold earrings, etc. It is also alleged therein that the accused No. 2, Rohim Uddin Barbhuiya (petitioner No. 3), is also involved in the matter, and when the informant inquired about the same, he threatened the informant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations leveled in the FIR are absurd, and not true. He submits that the alleged victim, namely, Jume Begum Laskar, is herself a joint petitioner, in this criminal petition, along with the other two accused persons.

5. It is submitted that though, the petitioner No. 1, was married to respondent No. 2, in the year 2011, however, the respondent No. 2, being a habitual drunkard, used to physically assault the petitioner No. 1, who somehow tolerated the said torture for the sake of her marriage. However, on 20.03.2019, the respondent No. 2, pronounced Talaq and divorced the petitioner No. 1, and since then, she is living in her parental house along with her three children.

6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1, being a major person, had, on 22.07.2023, solemnized social marriage with the petitioner No. 2, as per Islamic rites.

7. It is also submitted that at the time of marriage with the petitioner No. 1, he also accepted her three children, which were born out of her previous wedlock. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that unable to accept the fact that the petitioner No.1 has willfully married the petitioner No. 2 and continuing a happy conjugal life, the respondent No. 2, had lodged the false FIR, against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the sole purpose of lodging the false FIR, against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is to wreak vengeance against them and to harass them and as well as to disturb the peaceful conjugal life of petitioner No. 1.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpJzlIwyD3dt1VQdAEhxwovRrfmPRyXip6cqIRkLC9Ten&caseno=Crl.Pet./977/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010205122023&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.