Crl.Pet. 101/2016. Gauhati High Court
|Case Number:||Crl.Pet. 101/2016|
|Judgement Date:||May 24, 2020|
|Court:||Gauhati High Court|
Criminal Revisions for quashing of criminal proceeding
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Crl. Pet. 101/2016
Razeev Choudhury @ Rakib Choudhury
The State of Assam ( represented by Public Prosecutor)
W/ O – Lt. I bnul Haque
R/ o – House No. 98 Tangrasatra Road, Jayanagar, Guwahati-22
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
Advocates for the Petitioner : Mr. I Choudhry,
Mr. R L Chutia &
Ms. B M Bhuyan.
Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. P S Lahkar, Additional PP.
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 24.05.2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC filed with a prayer to quash the FI R registered by the Dispur Police Station being No. 1833/ 2015 under Section 420/ 406 I PC.
Page 1 of 3
Notice issued to the respondent No. 2 has not yet been served.
I have heard the learned Additional PP, Assam, Mr. P S Lahkar and the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. I have also perused the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC.
The respondent No. 2 lodged the FI R, marked as Annexure-1 of this proceeding, alleging that the respondent No. 2 took Rs. 1 crore from her for investment in his business which she paid to him on good faith as they were having very good family relation since about 30 years. The petitioner claims that the aforesaid amount was handed over to the respondent No. 2 in good faith and the respondent No. 2 assured that he would return the money within 1 year and within the month of February, 2012.
While the respondent No. 2 sent her son to remind the petitioner for returning the money, the petitioner expressed his inability to return the money and assured that money would be returned within next 2 months. Then the respondent No. 2 herself met the petitioner and the petitioner on this or that pretext kept on delaying the payment of the money given to him by her. Thereafter from 15.3.2015 onwards, on different dates, he issued cheques for about Rs. 80 lakhs and the same were bounced.
The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued before this court that the FI R should be quashed particularly on two grounds. First, the FI R has been registered under Section 406/ 420 I PC, as these two provisions cannot go together; Second, since the petitioner issued cheques which were bounced, the case, at best, could have been under the Negotiable I nstrument Act.
On the other hand, the learned Additional PP, Assam has submitted that this is...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL