Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010218962023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1067/2023 SWARUP CHANGKAKOTY AND 7 ORS. S/O LATE H.N. CHANGKAKOTY R/O KANWARCHAL ROAD, SILPUKHURI, P.O. SILPUKHURI P.S. CHANDMARI, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM-781003. 2: PARINITA CHANGKAKOTY @ SIKHA CHANGKAKTOY W/O SRI SWARUP CHANGKAKOTY R/O KANWARCHAL ROAD SILPUKHURI P.O. SILPUKHURI P.S. CHANDMARI DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM-781003. 3: PANCHI CHANGKAKOTY D/O SWARUP CHANGKAKOTY R/O KANWARCHAL ROAD SILPUKHURI P.O. SILPUKHURI P.S. CHANDMARI DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM-781003. 4: MRIDUSMITA SARMA BARUAH W/O TARUN PRASAD BARUAH R/O SURAJ NAGAR CLUB ROAD P.O. P.S. AND DIST.JORHAT ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 5: RASHMITA BARUAH W/O TARUN PRASAD BARUAH R/O SURAJ NAGAR CLUB ROAD P.O. P.S. AND DIST.JORHAT ASSAM 6: RANJIT BARUAH S/O LATE RAJENDRA NATH BRUAH R/O KHALIHAMARI P.O. P.S. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM R/O BONKONWARNAGAR KHARGHULI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM-781004. 7: DEEPA BARUAH W/O RANJIT BARUAH R/O KHALIHAMARI P.O. P.S. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM R/O BONKONWARNAGAR KHARGHULI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM-781004. 8: SIDHARTH BARUAH S/O RANJIT BARUAH R/O KHALIHAMARI P.O. P.S. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM R/O BONKONWARNAGAR KHARGHULI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM-781004 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SRI KUMUD KALITA S/O LATE HALIRAM KALITA Page No.# 3/5 R/O CHANDAN NAGAR BYE-LANE-10 P.S. AND DIST. JORHAT ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R PHUKAN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, J SAIKIA (R-2),MS B DUTTA(R-2),MR. S R GOGOI(R-2),MR. C SARMAH(R-2) :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 22.04.2025 Heard Mr. R. Phukan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. S.R. Gogoi, the learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), praying for quashing the proceedings of PRC No.1182/2021 pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S), Jorhat. 3. On 09.01.2021, the complainant was performing the rituals relating to cremation of his mother-in-law at Tarajan Cremation Ground. His brother-in-law, their daughters and other family members were also present there. At about 1.30 P.M., the present petitioners arrived there and they hurled abuse at the complainant and his other family members. The petitioners allegedly threatened the complainant and his family members with dire consequences. 4. After filing of the charge sheet under Sections 294 and 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the said Code, the trial court took cognizance of the said offence and issued summonses to the present petitioners asking them to appear in the court. Page No.# 4/5 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed the present application. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraphs 102 and 103 of the judgment read as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking Page No.# 5/5 vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 8. Coming back to the case in hand, the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is not meant to be used to interfere into the functioning of a criminal court. Police filed the charge sheet under certain sections of Indian Penal Code and the court below took cognizance of the said offences against the present petitioners. The trial is yet to begin. It is the duty of the prosecution side to prove the offences against the present petitioners. If the prosecution side succeeds, then the petitioners might be convicted and if the prosecution side fails to prove the offences, then the petitioners will be acquitted. 9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the High Court is not supposed to exercise its power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Taking cognizance of the offences against some people by a criminal court is ordinarily not an act of abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 10. At this stage, if this Court exercises its power under Section 482 of the CrPC, it would amount to interfering with the functioning of a criminal court. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the present criminal petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. ` JUDGE Comparing Assistant