Crl. Petn. No. 335 of 2011. Case: Sri Aminur Rahman & Anr. Vs Miss. Sahida Khatun. Guwahati High Court
| Case Number | Crl. Petn. No. 335 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Ms. P. Bhattacharya, Mr. R. Sarma and Mr. D. Thakuria, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. K.A. Majumdar, Addl. PP |
| Judges | S.C. Das, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 190, 197, 200, 257, 401, 482; Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (IPC) - Sections 217, 34, 352, 354, 384, 448 |
| Citation | 2013 (1) GLD 589 |
| Judgement Date | September 24, 2012 |
| Court | Guwahati High Court |
Judgment:
S.C. Das, J.
1. By this petition filed under Sections 482 and 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners challenged orders dated 10.06.2011 and 24.06.2011, passed by learned SDJM, Bijni, in connection with C.R. Case No. 234/2011. Heard learned counsel, Mr. T.J. Mahanta for the petitioners. Notice was served on the respondent by registered post but the respondent has chosen to remain absent. Since it is a criminal petition, I have heard learned Addl. P.P., Assam, Mr. K.A. Majumdar.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Mahanta that the petitioners are the Sub-Inspector of Police, posted at Panbari Police Watch Post under Bijni Sub-Division and they went to village No. 2 Garaimari under P.S. Bijni on 08.06.2011 to investigate criminal case vide FIR No. 143 of 2011 and FIR No. 144 of 2011 and, when they went to arrest the accused persons, the accused persons of those cases including some women of the village assaulted the police officers and restrained them from discharging their official duties and, as a result, they had to return from the village and, thereafter, they lodged an FIR at Bijni PS vide FIR No. 157 of 2011 (Annexure-F to the petition). After the said FIR was lodged by the petitioners, the respondent, who is the wife of the main accused in the police case Nos. 143/2011 and 144/2011, lodged the criminal complaint before the learned SDJM, Bijni (copy annexed at Annexure-G to the petition) and learned SDJM, considering the complaint, had taken cognizance on 10.06.2011 under Sections 217 /352 /354 /384 /448 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The complainant, thereafter, filed a petition before learned SDJM, praying for withdrawal of the complaint vide Annexure-J to the petition but the learned SDJM by order dated 24.06.2011 rejected the petition, and therefore, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on two grounds, namely (i) that a criminal proceeding is not maintainable against the petitioners without sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and that (ii) the rejection of petition seeking withdrawal was wrong and unjustified. It is contended by learned counsel, Mr. Mahanta that the case was triable as summons case, and therefore learned SDJM was wrong in rejecting the prayer of withdrawal petition filed by the complainant.
3. Learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Magistrate was supposed to pass an appropriate order on the petition filed by the complainant...
To continue reading
Request your trial