GUWAHATI GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SRI KAMAKHYA MISRA V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM

GUWAHATI, India, April 26 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on March 26:

1. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V.A. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.

2. By way of this petition under Section 482 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C, 1973, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 26.12.2019 and proceedings of Complainant Case No.5078/2019 pending in the Court of learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 26.12.2019, one Amaranda Hazarika, Assam Judicial Service (AJS) lodged a complaint case before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) alleging, inter-alia, that on 26.12.2019 at about 11:00 A.M,, the petitioner on appearing before his Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, 1st class Kamrup (M), Guwahati, on execution of process against him in connection with GR Case No.7434/2011 stated derogatory remarks towards the Court and further stated that the Court committed mistake for which he suffered.

4. Accordingly, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) by order dated 26.12.2019 took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 228 of IPC. Against the aforesaid complaint as well as the order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), the present criminal petition has been filed.

5. Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel by referring to the first schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C, 1973), relating to offences under the India Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC), submitted that in connection to section 228 of IPC, it is provided that the Court in which the offence is committed is the Court which will try the said offence.

6. He further submits that the procedure provided under Section 340 of Cr.P.C to try the offences under Section 228 of IPC has not been followed in the instant case. He accordingly submits that the order of the cognizance by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) is erroneous in law.

7. Reacting to the aforesaid arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent fairly submits that since the Court, which took cognizance of the offence under Section 228, admittedly is not the Court in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the matter can be remitted back to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) for passing necessary orders as per the law.

8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d%2BLakEXjNHDvYP31itSZfff94iAkX0XmlNQVDFIcmnV%2B&caseno=Crl.Pet./487/2020&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010136642020&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.