Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010184672014 2025:GAU-AS:905 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./175/2014 AMALENDU DAS GUPTA and 10 ORS S/O LT. DAM MOHAN DASGUPTA @ ALOK MONI DASGUPTA. 2: SUSHIL KUMAR DAS S/OLT. SURESH CH. DAS 3: SHANKU NATH S/O LT. SURAJ NATH 4: DILIP ROY S/O NETAI ROY 5: NABA KUMAR ROY S/O LT. GAURA ROY 6: BIMAL RAJ BHOR S/O LT. RAJ KISHORE RAJBHOR 7: MOINA TANTI S/O LT. JOYA TANTI 8: MONARANJAN GARH S/O RAMJUSH GORH 9: MOHANLAL TANTI 10: AMRIT LAL SHARMA 11: AJOY GOURI DAS S/OLT. SANKAR GAURI DAS ALL ARE OF KALINAGAR T.E. P.S. RAMKRISHNA NAGAR KARIMGANJ Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM VERSUS ABDUL HAQUE and ANR S/O LT. MIA CHAND ALI R/O VILL- UTTAR DALUGANG LALIT CHERRA P.S. RAMKRISHNA NAGAR, KARIMGANJ. 2:THE STATE OF ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.G N SAHEWALLA, MRS.S S BAWARI,MR.P BORA,MR.P DEKA,MD.ASLAM Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S R BARBHUIYA, PP, ASSAM,DR.B AHMED,MR.A B T HAQUE,MRK UDDIN BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 28.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. P Borthakur, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. The present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is filed assailing an order dated 16.12.2013, passed by the learned JMFC, Karimganj in CR Case No.881/2012, whereby cognizance of offence under sections 447/427/34 IPC were taken. 3. The basic ground raised in this petition is that the alleged offences were committed in execution of a decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No.1 at Karimganj in Title Execution Case No.1/2006, arising out of judgment and decree Page No.# 3/4 passed in Title Suit No.40/2001. 4. It is on record that arising out of the same incident as alleged in CR Case No.881/2012 an FIR was lodged which was registered as Ramkrishna Nagar PS Case No.102/2012, corresponding to GR Case No.1230/2012. After completion of the investigation, a closure Report was filed by the investigating authority with a conclusion by the investigating authority that the alleged incident occurred in execution of a lawful decree and therefore, no case was made out. 5. Thereafter the informant in Ramkrishna Nagar PS Case No.102/2012 filed Narazi Petition and taking note of such Narazi Petition, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 16.12.2013 took cognizance of offence under sections 447/427/34 IPC. 6. It is an admitted position, as on date that alleging the execution was not carried out properly and that it was carried out in violation of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.40/2001, the informant/respondent/Complainant herein in CR Case No.881/2012 approached a Civil Court by filing Money Suit No.05/2012, seeking compensation. The said suit has already been decreed by judgment and decree dated 04.02.2019 awarding certain amount of compensation for wrongful execution of the judgment. 7. Against the aforesaid judgment, a Money Appeal was preferred by the present petitioners which were dismissed by the learned Appellate Court and against the aforesaid order, a second appeal is still pending for adjudication before this court. Page No.# 4/4 8. In the considered opinion of this court, admittedly, even if any excess was carried out that was carried out in execution of a decree under the authority of the court and accordingly the respondent has also been compensated. 9. Therefore, in the totality of the matter and more particularly taking note of the final report as well as the subsequent development and also taking note of the Narazi Petition and the materials available in CR Case No.881/2012, this court is of the unhesitant view that no case under section 447/427/34 IPC is made out. Accordingly the present petition stands allowed by setting aside and quashing the order dated 16.12.2013 passed by the JMFC, Karimganj in CR Case No.881/2012. 10. While parting with the record, it is made clear that any observations made in this case shall not influence any decision that may be taken arising out of the subject matter in civil proceeding between the parties which is pending or might be filed by the parties against each other. 11. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant