Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010106962023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./729/2023 IYAKUB KHAN @ BAMUN S/O HABESH KHAN VILL- NIZ BAHARI P.O. NIZ BAHARI P.S. TARABARI DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM PIN-781302 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:JELEKA MOLLAH W/O SADDAM HUSSAIN VILL- NIZ BAHARI P.O. NIZ BAHARI P.S. TARABARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S AHMED, MS J HAZARIKA,MS. M. KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, J BORAH (R-2),MS N AKTAR(R-2),MS. M. KHATUN(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Page No.# 2/4 ORDER Date : 07.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Ms. J. Bora, appearing for respondent no.2. 2. This is an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner namely, Iyakub Khan@Bamun, praying for quashing of the chargesheet filed in Tarabari P.S. Case No.88/2018 Under Section 120(B)/302 of IPC. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of instant Criminal petition, in brief, are that on the basis of an FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 on 10.04.2018, alleging, inter alia that on the night of 09.04.2018, accused persons no.1 and no.2 named in the FIR called the maternal uncle of the informant out of his house and thereafter he was untraceable. Later on, the maternal uncle of the informant was found in an injured condition in the kitchen of one Mangal Kha. The injured person was later taken to Chenga Hospital where the doctors declared him brought dead. 4. Upon receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Tarabari P.S. Case No.88/2018 was registered and investigation was initiated. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid Under Section 120(B)/302/34 of IPC against 5(five) accused persons including one Md. Bamun Khan, son of Habesh Khan who has been shown as absconder. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s name is Iyakub Khan, however the summons issued by the Committal Court in PRC Case No. 869/2021 in the name of Bamun Khan was delivered to him by the process server. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner had received the summons issued by the Court of learned Judicial Page No.# 3/4 Magistrate First Class in PRC Case No. 869/2021, he is apprehending that on his appearance before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barpeta, he may be detained. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the name of the present petitioner namely Iyakub Khan@Bamun has been shown in the charge-sheet as prosecution witness no.2. Hence, the summons issued by court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was wrongly served on him. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the confusion might have been created as the father’s name of the absconder accused as well as the prosecution witness no.2 listed in the charge-sheet are same. However, she submits that the petitioner has failed to made out a case for quashing of the charge-sheet in this case. 9. On the other hand, Ms. J. Bora, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 who is also the first informant of the case has fairly submitted that the present petitioner is not the accused Bamun Khan, who has been named in the charge-sheet as an absconder. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also submitted that the present petitioner is known to the first informant since his childhood and he is not the absconding accused namely, Bamun Khan. 10. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials on record including the scanned copy of case record of PRC Case No. 869/2021. It also appears from the record of the PRC case that before the Committal Court also, the present petitioner has filed an application through his engaged counsel by the name Bamun Khan @Iyakub Khan. 11. Considering the fact that the name of Bamun Khan, has been shown as absconding accused in the charge-sheet, whereas name of Iyakub Khan has been shown as a prosecution witness no.2 in the chargesheet, it appears that they are not one same person. This conclusion is also fortified by the submissions made Page No.# 4/4 by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 who has categorically submitted that the present petitioner is Iyakub Khan and not the absconding accused Bamun Khan. 12. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as in view of the materials on record this court finds that this case is not at all a case where the inherent powers of this court may be exercise for quashing the FIR, however this Criminal petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barpeta, i.e the court which issued the summons which was served on him to let the said court know about wrong service of summons on him and make a prayer for necessary rectification. 13. With the above observations this criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant