Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010204362021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./728/2021 ABDUL WADUD SHAH @ ASHAD SHAH AND 2 ORS S/O SAMSUL HOQU SHAH R/O VILL- BORO BAGJHAPA, P.O. HAZIRHAT P.S. SUKCHOR, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA, MANKACHAR, ASSAM 2: ABDUL WAHID SHAH @ KACCHU SHAH S/O SAMSUL HOQUE SHAH R/O VILL- BORO BAGJHAPA P.O. HAZIRHAT P.S. SUKCHOR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 3: ASHRAFUL ALAM SHAH @ DANGOL S/O ABDUL SALAM SHAH R/O VILL- BORO BAGJHAPA P.O. HAZIRHAT P.S. SUKCHOR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR THROUGH THE PP, ASSAM, GUWAHATI-781001 2:ABDUR RAHIM SK. S/O LATE IMAN ALI SK. Page No.# 2/6 R/O VILL- BORO BAGJHAPA P.O. HAZIRHAT P.S. SUKCHOR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAJUMDAR, MR. A K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M DEKA (R-2),MS. A HUSSAIN (R-2),MR. R ISLAM (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Date on which judgment is reserved : 29.07.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) 1. Heard Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This criminal petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the Criminal proceedings in PR case number 115 of 2019 pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hatsingimari including the charge-sheet and FIR of the case. 3. An FIR dated 12.07.2018 was lodged in the Sukchor Police Station, Page No.# 3/6 Sukchor inter-alia alleging that the accused persons named therein had blocked the way of the informant on the road near their house and had injured him by inflicting blows with hand on different parts of the body. Further allegation is that the accused No. 1 namely, Zahangir Alom and accused No. 6 Ashad Shah tried to inflict injuries on the informant with daggers, but as the nearby people came to the place of occurrence, the informant by raising hue and cry had escaped. Further allegation is that the accused persons also snatched certain documents from the informant that the informant was carrying. As a result, Sukchar PS Case No. 73/2018 was registered under Section 341/323/379/305/511 of the IPC. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an FIR was lodged on 11.07.2018 by the elder brother of the petitioner No. 2, Sri Jahangir Alom Shah against the complainant, Abdur Rahim Sk., his three brothers and his son for sexually assaulting his minor sister amongst other offences which was registered as Sukchor P.S. Case No. 72/2018 under section 120(B)/341/354 of I.P.C. read with section 6 of POCSO Act 2012. In connection with the said case the son of Abdur Rahim Sk. was arrested and later on released on bail and the other accused persons including Abdur Rahim Sk. were granted pre- arrest bail. 5. It is submitted that the FIR of the present case has been lodged as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner referred to above. 6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court inasmuch as the case against the petitioner has been instituted with a view to wreak personal vengeance against the petitioner. In this regard, learned counsel has referred Page No.# 4/6 to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajanlal v. State of Haryana reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and 1992 AIR 604. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the police after investigation has submitted the charge sheet and no case has been made out for quashing of the same as the contents of the FIR and the charge sheet reveal the commission of the alleged offences and this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot go into the merits of the case. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 was the head teacher. 8. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 was the head teacher of 2025 No. Arater Goan L.P. School at that point of time. The actual dispute arose in between the deponent and the father of the petitioner No. 3 namely Abdul Salam Shah regarding formation of a Managing Committee of the said school where the deponent was the headmaster-cum-Member Secretary of the Managing Committee. The said Abdul Salam Shah wanted to select his own person to be the President of the Managing Committee of the school and as such he mounted pressure on the Respondent No. 2 to induct the name of the person of his choice without convening a General meeting. The deponent did not agree with the proposal made by the said Abdul Salam Shah and having regard to that, the father of the petitioner no. 3 threatened the deponent. 9. On the day of incident, when the deponent was proceeding to the school along with school data, Resolution NT Book and other valuable documents, the present petitioners accosted the petitioner No.2 on the road near the house of the petitioners and snatched away the valuable documents of the school including the resolution books by assaulting him and also tried to attack the deponent with dagger and on making hue and Page No.# 5/6 cry, the nearby people rushed to the incident and the petitioner No.2 somehow saved his life by entering into a nearby house of one Ajiar Rahman Shah. Due to the aforesaid assault the petitioner No.2 was grievously injured. 10. That, after getting the aforesaid information, the relatives of the petitioner No.2 came to the place of occurrence and he was safely taken out from the said house and then taken to the Sub-Divisional Civil Hospital, Hatsingimari for his treatment and thereafter only, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged before the Sukchar Police Station on the same day i.e., on 12.07.2018. Accordingly, the said case has been registered as Sukchar Case No. 73/2018 u/s. 341/323/379/307/511 of the IPC and police started investigation into the matter and submitted charge-sheet. 11. The respondent No. 2 has also filed a written objection to the instant application reflecting the aforesaid contentions. 12. The scanned copy of the TCR, as called for, has been received along with the statements of the witnesses. 13. From bare perusal of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet and also from the statements of the witnesses available in the TCR, it cannot be said that no offence at all has been made out on the face of the FIR or that the present is a case of no evidence whatsoever. Further, whether the FIR of the instant case has been lodged in order to wreck personal vengeance of the petitioner is not a matter that can be decided by this Court on the basis of the material before it. It is of course true that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS, the Court ought to make an attempt to read between the lines in order to discover the Page No.# 6/6 aforesaid aspect of the matter but the materials available herein are insufficient for this Court, even after making an attempt at such an exercise to come to a conclusion that the present case is actuated by nothing but malice. 14. Furthermore, the contentions of the respondent No.2, which are also supported by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cannot be said to be without basis or unworthy of acceptance. 15. In any event, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that it is the trial court which would be better placed to decide whether the trial should proceed or not at the time of consideration of charge when the learned court below would be in a position to scrutinize all the available material in detail and also hear the parties on facts as well as on law. 16. In view of the above, this Court declines to exercise its discretionary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 BNSS and accordingly the petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant