GIRISH BARUAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY making this application under Section 482 Crpc, the present petitioner, who is accused in Bongaigaon Police Station Case No. 127 of 2008 under Sections 493/376/325 IPC, has sought for quashing of the First Information Report (in short 'fir'), which has led to the regulation of the said case, and also the investigation presently being carried on in consequence of the said FIR.

(2.) BEFORE delving upon the ground on which the petitioner's case for quashing of the FIR rests, appropriate it is to point out that according to the FIR the informant and the present petitioner were in love with each other, the present petitioner promised to marry her and induced her, with the promise so much, in live and cohabit with him as her husband, but did not, eventually, marry her and instead, married another girl on 20. 03. 2008 and, on hearing about the marriage of the present petitioner, when the informant went to the house of the petitioner and questioned him about what she had heard, the petitioner not only declined marry the informant, but also threatened the informant, assaulted her and drove her out of his house and as a result of such assault, she had sustained grievance injuries on her neck and other parts of her body.

(3.) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. G. M. Paul, learned counsel submits that even if the contends of the FIR, in question, are assumed to be true in their entirety, the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence under Sections 493/376/325 IPC and, hence, the police ought not to have registered any case against the present petitioner. This apart, an offence, under Section 493, according to Mr. Paul, is a non-cognizable offence and, hence, police could not have registered a case under Section 493 IPC and/or investigate the same, on the basis of an FIR. Without any order from the Magistrate. It is further submitted by Mr. Paul that under no circumstances, the contents of the FIR, in question, can be taken to constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC. Support for this submission is sought to be derived by Mr. Paul from the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 48. It is reiterated by Mr. Paul that the FIR does not disclose commission of an offence under Section 493 or commission of an offence under Section 376 IPC, Mr. Paul further submits that neither the FIR nor the investigation, in the present case, which is being earned out pursuant to the FIR, is sustainable in law and may, therefore, be set aside and quashed.