Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010258372023 2025:GAU-AS:4896 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1219/2023 ANU PEGU AND 2 ORS W/O SRI KHAGESWAR PEGU R/O VILL- RUWAD DOLUNG PIN-787060 P.S. JONAI, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM 2: SRI KHAGESWAR PEGU S/O DEVI RAM PEGU R/O VILL- RUWAD DOLUNG PIN-787060 P.S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM 3: SRI HIRAKJYOTI PEGU S/O SRI KHAGESWAR PEGU R/O VILL- RUWAD DOLUNG PIN-787060 P.S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. PADMADOI PAIT TAYE W/O LATE INDRESWAR TAYE R/O VILL- LAKHI NEPALI BASTI P.S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM Page No.# 2/10 PIN-78706 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G JALAN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. K MOHAMMED (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 23/04/2025 Heard Mr. G. Jalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Mohammed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. S. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of Complaint Case No. 08/2023 arising out of Petition No. 12/2023 dated 07.01.2023 under Section 341/427/506/34 of IPC, pending before the learned SDJM Jonai. 3. The case of the Petitioners is that, Petitioner No. 2 has initially lodged a complaint at the Jonai Police Station being registered as GD Entry No. 238 dated 11.03.2021; against the respondent No. 2 alleging that she has entered into his land illegally. The police investigated the matter and submitted a report dated 13.03.2021 by filing a Non FIR Case number Jonai Police Station Non FIR part- 1, 31/2021 under section 107/145 of Cr.P.C. The respondent No. 2 also lodged a counter FIR against the petitioners in the Jonai Police Station on 16.03.2021; which was registered as Jonai Police Station case No. 45/2021 under Section 341/427/506/34 IPC, alleging that the petitioners that other miscreants had come to her land and threatened and assaulted her. The Police Station after Page No.# 3/10 investigation filed Final Report in the said case vide FR No. 18/2021 dated 17.04.2021 stating that prima facie, it was found to be a case of civil nature pertaining to land and boundary dispute. The respondent being aggrieved filed a protest petition bearing No. 12/2023 on 07.01.2023; by improvising her statements and by bringing two cooked up witnesses. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the statements of the two witnesses being contradictory and not revealing any prima facie case the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Section 341/427/506/34 IPC vide order dated 06.07.2023 and the said protest petition was treated as a complaint and registered as CR Case No. 8/2023. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the civil dispute relating to the land and boundary between the petitioners and the respondent has been given a criminal colour to harass the petitioners and therefore, it is prayed that the CR case No. 8/2023 and the cognizance order dated 06.07.2023 before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Jonai may be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the protest petition which was converted into a complaint case by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai was filed only on 07.01.2023 after a long gab of about 22 Months after the final report was filed. He has also submitted that the report of the Police dated 06.07.2023 shows that the Police have not examined any witness in order to come to a conclusion that there was trespass or assault or any sort of offence under Section 339 IPC/503 IPC or 427 IPC. Whereas, the Page No.# 4/10 respondent No.2 had produced two witnesses on 08.05.2023 before the trial court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the two witnesses of the respondent No. 2 being Anita Doley and Nitumoni Miri have not been able to show that any offences has been made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Versus State of U.P & Others in Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2023 and also the case of Neeharika infrastructure private limited Versus State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 19 SCC 401 to support his contentions that whenever an accused comes before the court invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to get the FIR or the Criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or instituted with ulterior motives for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the court has a duty to look into the FIR with care and look into all the facts and circumstances leading to the lodging of the case. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited cases have clearly laid down that where the uncontroverted allegations made in FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offences and make out a case against the accused, the court should have no hesitation in quashing the FIR or the complaint. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the celebrated case of State of Haryana Versus Bhajanlala, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court had considered in detail the scope of the powers of the High Court Page No.# 5/10 under Section 482 Cr.P.C and has directed that the High Court can quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task when the FIR/complaint/evidence do not disclose the commission of any offence. 10. Relying on the aforementioned judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the present case also there are no ingredients of section 339 IPC, 503 IPC or 427 IPC in the present case and therefore, prays that the complaint case No. 8/2023 and the cognizance Order dated 06.07.2023 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai may be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. K. Mohammed has filed his written objection and has submitted that the instant petition has been filed only to delay the trial of CR Case No. 8/2023, he as submitted that it is an admitted position of law that even after accepting the Final Report, it is always open to the Magistrate to treat the respective protest petition as a complaint and to take further proceedings in accordance with law, he has also submitted that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised sparingly and with great caution and such powers should not be used to interfere with the jurisdiction of the lower court or to scuttle a fair investigation. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has stated that the protest petition was registered as petition No. 12/2023 before the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai. Upon registration the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 08.05.2023 called for a report from the concerned Police Station under Section 202 Cr.P.C about the allegation made in the petition No. 12/2023. Pursuant to this order dated 08.05.2023 the concerned Jonai Police Page No.# 6/10 Station conducted detailed investigation and forwarded its report to the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai on 06.07.2023; the report clearly stated that the incident mention in the FIR as well as in the protest petition is true. Therefore, the learned Trial Court on 06.07.2023 after perusing the report of the Police had taken cognizance under section 341/427/506/34 and summons were issued to the accused/petitioners. 13. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners had attacked the respondent No. 2 with sharp weapon with the intention to cause hurt and the property of the respondent No. 2, i.e the bamboo boundary wall was also destroyed by the petitioners and therefore, the dispute no longer remained Civil in nature. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has relied on the case of Zunaid Versus State of U.P. and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1082 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that: ”11. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt that on the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr. P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options. Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; and thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. It may be noted that even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report. As held by this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha, as followed in B. Chandrika v. Santhosh, a Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report. No doubt a Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be. Page No.# 7/10 12. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the concerned CIM vide the detailed order passed on 15.11.2018 had rejected the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and had accepted the Protest Petition, and decided to proceed further under Section 200 Cr. P.C. Such a course opted by the CJM was absolutely just, legal and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 15. In view of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 states that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality and there is nothing wrong in the proceeding of the trial Court and therefore, there is no infirmity in the conversion of the protest petition into a complaint case or the taking of cognizance by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that there is no cause for interference by this Court at this stage and further prays that the learned Trial Court may be allowed to proceed with the complaint case in accordance with law. He accordingly prays that the present petition may be dismissed in the interest of justice. 16. Learned Additional P.P., Ms. S. Borah appears for the State of Assam and has supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and prays that this Court may not interfere with the proceedings of the complaint case pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai at this stage as the procedure adopted by the learned Trial Court is legally tenable in the eye of law and the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be dismissed. 17. I have considered the opposing submission of the parties, and perused the Trial Court Record. In the Case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Versus State of Uttaranchal and Other reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expounded on the scope and ambit of courts powers under Page No.# 8/10 Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that: ”23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.” 18. The law is well settled that inherent power in 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C, or to prevent abuse of the process of court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also made it clear through several decisions that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. 19. In the present case, it is seen that one of the witnesses who appeared before the learned Trial Court stated that the petitioner No. 3 tried to climb the bamboo fencing and attacked the complainant but public rescued the complainant. 20. Another witness stated that on 16.03.2023 on hearing hue and cry she went Page No.# 9/10 to the land of the complainant and saw that the petitioner No. 3 with a dao tried to attack the complainant and when the complainant was rescued he attacked the bamboo fencing of the complainant with the dao and broke it. The law is also well settled that even a Final Report of the investigating officer can be rejected by the Magistrate and protest petition can be registered as complaint case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the proceeding of the learned Trial Court in converting the protest petition as a complaint case even if there had been a Final Report of the investigating officer that the case was purely civil in nature. In the present case it is also noticed that the learned Trial Court had sought for a report from the Police Station vide Order dated 08.05.2023 before the cognizance. In the report of the Police Station 06.07.2023 and also in the deposition of the two witness of the complainant the prima facia case under Section 503 IPC and 427 IPC and 34 IPC had been made out. And accordingly, the learned Trial Court had taken cognizance under Section 341/427/506/37 IPC. 21. This Court is also of the view that initially there may have been a dispute of civil nature between the parties. However, with the turn of events prima facie there are ingredients of criminal nature in the complaint before the learned trial court. The facts of the cases relied upon by the petitioner are different from the facts in the present case even though the principle of law laid down is accepted. Hence, they are not relevant to the present petition. 22. In view of the observation made above this Court is not inclined to interfere in the proceeding before the learned Trial Court at this stage. The instant petition is accordingly, dismissed. Page No.# 10/10 23. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai, is directed to proceed with the complaint case and the petitioner(s) as well as the respondent No.2 shall appear before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai within 3(three) weeks from today. 24. Petition stands disposed accordingly. 25. Stay order, if any, stands vacated Registry to send back the Trial Court records to Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai along with a copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant