Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010282042023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1339/2023 LABANYA KONWAR W/O LATE JAYCHANDRA KONWAR R/O NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN, WARD NO. 3, C.D.ROAD, P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMT. KARABI SAIKIA KONWAR W/O LATE MOUSUM KONWAR R/O WARD NO. 3 AHUCHAULGAON P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78700 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MD R ISLAM,MR. S RAHMAN,MS F HUSSAIN,MR S M ABDULLAH P Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. H S BARUAH (r-2),MR M BHUYAN (r-2),MR. B GOGOI (r-2),MR A CHALIHA (R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 14.02.2025 1. Heard Ms. F. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent as well as Mr. M. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Labanya Konwar for setting aside and quashing the proceeding of PRC Case No. 614/2021 corresponding to GR Case No. 2418/2019 arising out of North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 1127/2019 under Section 498A/506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition is that: i. The respondent No. 2 had lodged an FIR on 16.09.2019 against the petitioner and the son in law of the petitioner, alleging that the accused persons have driven out the respondent No. 2 from her matrimonial home and also threatened her of dire consequences if she does not leave the place. ii. On receipt of the said FIR, North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 1127/2019 under Sections 498A/506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and the investigation was initiated. iii. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the present petitioner and her son-in-law, namely, Page No.# 3/5 Baikuntha Bhuyan. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the respondent No. 2 and after the death of her son, i.e., the husband of the respondent No.2, there has been frequent altercation between them on various issues. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been made out in the FIR as well as from the charge sheet when read with the other materials which were sent along with the charge sheet. 6. She submits that the FIR was filed by the respondent No.2 only to settle her personal scores and to wreak vengeance against the petitioner who is her mother-in-law. 7. She has further submitted that presently the petitioner, who is an old lady of 77 years of age is residing at her daughter's house and the respondent No.2 is staying in the house of her son. 8. She has also submitted that already four rooms of the house of the son of the present petitioner were handed over to the respondent No.2 by entering into an agreement. 9. She has also submitted that by misusing the provision of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent had falsely implicated the petitioner and her son-in-law in the case. 10. On the other hand, Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, submits that the respondent No.2 does not have any objection if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also does not make any Page No.# 4/5 opposition to the prayer of the petitioner. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on record very carefully. 13. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that Respondent No. 2 had lodged the FIR, when she tried to install a new electricity connection in her rented room, and when the present petitioner objected to said act. 14. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, it appears that now she does not want to pursue the case against her on relatives. Moreover, on careful perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that it lacks ingredients constituting offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. The dispute being in the nature of matrimonial dispute within the relatives, and as the informant (Respondent No. 2) has decided not to pursue the matter, it is unlikely that the pending criminal proceeding against the petitioner would result in a conviction. Therefore, pursuing the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would be a futile exercise. 16. Moreover, considering the circumstances of this case, even the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not objected to the prayer of the petitioner. 17. Under such circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that this is a fit case where the inherent powers of this Court may be exercised under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the criminal proceeding of PRC Case No. 614/2021 corresponding to GR Case No. 2418/2019. 18. In view of above discussion, the instant criminal petition is allowed and the criminal proceeding of PRC Case No. 614/2021 corresponding to GR Case Page No.# 5/5 No. 2418/2019 is hereby quashed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant