Page No.# 1/3
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet. 776/2018
S/O TAHER ALI
R/O VILL- WARD NO. 2, MANGALDOI
DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM
1:ARJUWARA BEGUM AND ANR.
W/O MD. LUTFUR ALOM
D/O MD. ACHIRUDDIN AHMED
R/O WARD NO. 2,
DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PP
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM (R2)
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also
heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State and
Page No.# 2/3
Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the respondent No.1.
In this petition a prayer has been made for quashing the complaint case
registered as Criminal Case No.160/2018 in the Court of learned SDJM,
Mangaldoi and the order dated 11.06.2018 passed therein taking cognizance
of the complaint made against the petitioner/accused under Section 406 of the
By referring to the materials available on record Mr. Choudhury submits
that there is no allegation regarding entrustment of the property to the
petitioner and as such the learned court below ought not to have taken
cognizance of the complaint case under Section 406 IPC. Instead, submits Mr.
Choudhury, the allegations made in the complaint would at best make out a
case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As such, a
prayer has been made for quashing the aforesaid proceeding.
Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand,
submits that in this case the complainant is merely seeking to prosecute the
petitioner for misappropriation of the ‘stridhan” articles which are lying in his
custody. The learned trial Court had taken cognizance of the complaint based
on the statements of the witnesses and thereafter, issued process being satisfied
with the materials on record. Therefore, according to Mr. Ahmed, there is no
valid ground for quashing the complaint case at this stage. Mr. Ahmed further
submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted in connection with G.R.
Case No.3564/2017 registered under Section 498A/34 IPC against the petitioner
as a co-accused based on an ejahar lodged by the respondent No.1.
The respondent No.1/complainant was admittedly residing with her
Page No.# 3/3
husband at her matrimonial home before she had to leave that house under
the circumstances alleged in the petition. It is not in dispute that her stridhan is
lying in the matrimonial home. Therefore, having regard to the allegations
made in the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses examined
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. I am of the prima facie opinion that there were
sufficient materials for the learned court below to take cognizance in the
matter under Section 406 of the IPC.
Whether there is scope for altering charge in this case based on materials
brought before the Court is another matter and the petitioner would always be
at liberty to raise such a plea before the court below. That apart, since a G.R.
case is also pending where charge-sheet has been submitted against the
petitioner, the learned court below may also have to examine as to whether
the process contemplated under Section 210 Cr.P.C. is required to be resorted
to in this case. Therefore, giving liberty to the petitioner to raise the aforesaid
plea before the learned court below in accordance with law, this revision
petition stands disposed of by rejecting the prayer for quashing the complaint