Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010169172024 2026:GAU-AS:13540 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./579/2024 CHAMPA SAIKIA W/O SRI PUNARAM SAIKIA BAROJPUJIA DARANGIYAL GAON P.S.-RAHA P.S.-ALIKUCHI DIST-NAGAON 782103 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM 2:SNIGDHA SAIKIA D/O BHULA SAIKIA R/O KUMARGAON P.S.-NAGAON SADAR DIST- NAGAON ASSAM ------------ Page No.# 2/15 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr M. Smith Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. S. Nawaz, Advocate Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP Date on which judgment was reserved :NA Date of pronouncement of judgment :14.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : operative part of the judgment?:NA Whether the full judgment has been :Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. M. Smith, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Raha P.S. Case No. 299/2020 as well as the charge sheet submitted in the said case vide charge sheet no.185/2020 along with the PRC Case No. 237/2021 registered under Section 498A IPC, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, No.2 at Nagaon. The Page No.# 3/15 petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Raha P.S. Case No. 159/2021 as well as the PRC Case being instituted in pursuance thereto being PRC Case No. 676/2023 under Section 498A IPC pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon. The qua petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Domestic Violence Case being DV Case No. 172/2023 registered under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, No.1 at Nagaon. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.06.2020, her daughter in law namely Smti Snigdha Saikia had filed a First Information Report before the Raha Police Station stating inter alia that on 17.06.2020 at around 07:00 pm, the accused persons including the petitioner had falsely abused her and demanded dowry. It is further stated that on the instigation of the petitioner, the son of the petitioner being arrayed as accused no.1 tried to kill her with a knife. It is also stated that with the help of the petitioner, accused no.1 i.e. the husband of the victim tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil upon her but the victim stated that she somehow escaped. On receipt of the said ejahar, the police personnel from Raha Police Station registered the case as Raha P.S. Case No. 105/2020 under Section 498A IPC. Pursuant thereto, the Investigating Officer had conducted the investigation and submitted a final report on 30.06.2020. In the said final report, it was stated that the victim-complainant stated before the Investigating Officer that the FIR was filed due to misunderstanding between her Page No.# 4/15 husband and herself. It was further stated that an application was filed by the victim before the Raha Police Station that an agreement was entered into between the victim and her husband for settlement of their dispute and that a prayer was made by the victim to struck of the name of the accused persons in the FIR. 4. In view of the said final Report, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Nagaon by order dated 28.12.2020 had accepted the final report and disposed of the case. However, by the said order, the Court had asked the victim to file a formal complaint to proceed with her case. 5. Before the said order dated 28.12.2020 i.e. on 05.12.2020, the informant had filed another FIR before the Raha Police Station stating inter alia that on 04.12.2020 at around 07:30pm, her husband namely Nabajyoti Saikia and the petitioner again abused her and demanded dowry. She also alleged that the petitioner had thrown hot boiling water upon her and also that her husband tried to kill her with a machete to which, however, she saved herself by locking the doors. On receipt of this FIR, the police personnel from Raha Police Station had registered the FIR as Raha PS Case No. 299/2020 under Section 498A IPC. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet on 26.12.2020. In the said charge sheet, it was stated that sufficient evidence and a proper case was established under Section 498A of the IPC against the petitioner and her son. It was also stated that medical examination of the victim was not conducted as she had refused for the same. It is this FIR and the charge sheet that the Page No.# 5/15 petitioner has prayed for quashing by this Court. 6. Subsequent to the said submission of the charge sheet, the alleged victim and her husband entered into an agreement on 25.03.2021 and they agreed that the FIR resulting in lodging of Raha PS Case No. 299/2020 was filed due to the misunderstanding of the informant. It was also agreed upon that there was no violence between the informant and her husband and that the case was registered due to sudden provocation. It was also stated that there is no dispute between the informant and her husband and that the informant will appear before the Court with regard to the said matter and settle the case and further that they will live as a couple. 7. However, before the condition mentioned in the agreement was fulfilled i.e. the informant appearing before the Court and settling the matter, the informant had lodged another FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon against her husband as well as the petitioner and her father in law. In the said FIR, the informant stated that she eloped and got married with her husband on 09.03.2020 and that she was staying with her husband and that initially everything was alright but later the informant stated that her husband demanded Rs. 10 lakhs from her father’s house as per the advice of the petitioner and others. She further stated that being unable to give the money, the accused persons use to beat her and torture her. She thereafter stated that on 04.12.2020, the accused persons threw hot boiling water on her to which she somehow escaped and for which she had already filed the earlier Page No.# 6/15 ejahar. However, she stated that on 25.03.2021, although she entered into an agreement with her husband and pursuant thereof, her husband took her to his native home but he again started torturing her and demanded money and also that her husband evicted her from his house. She further stated that accused persons including the petitioner tried to kill her by strangulating and that having no option, she went to her father’s house and that she is pregnant by one month. The police on receipt of the said information registered the case as Raha P.S. Case No. 159/2021 under Section 498A IPC. The police upon conclusion of the investigation in connection with the said case, submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and her son under Section 498A IPC. It is also this FIR and consequent charge sheet that the petitioner has prayed for quashing. 8. Thereafter on 15th May, 2023, the informant filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act, which was registered as DV Case No. 172/2023 registered under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as " the DV Act". In the said application, the informant had written in details the following facts: i) the informant was working at RD Motors as a Simulator Guide and that the son of the petitioner came to take driving training at RD Motors and on being introduced, the victim became friendly with son of the petitioner and with time, relationship started and that it resulted in marriage of the informant with the son of the Page No.# 7/15 petitioner. ii) during marriage the family members of the informant bought clothes as well as other articles but the petitioner and other family members reprimanded her for not bringing enough articles. iii) the petitioner as well as others had told her that they got her married to her son only due to the Government job that she is working. iv) the petitioner and her family members had also forced her to get a land of her father in the name of her son. v) on the instigation of the petitioner as well as the sister of her husband, the husband of the victim tried to burn her by pouring kerosene oil on her body and that neighbors came and rescued her. vi) the victim was repeatedly tortured by the petitioner and other family members for money. vii) on 04.12.2020 at around 07:30 pm, the petitioner and other family members had poured hot boiling water on victims body for not bringing dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs. viii) the victim had also stated about the FIR that she had lodged and the agreement that she entered into with her husband. It is also stated that the petitioner and others had terminated her pregnancy. On the basis of the said pleadings, the victim had prayed for orders under Section 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 of the Act from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nagaon. Page No.# 8/15 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim had lodged one FIR after the other on the same allegations. He submits that pursuant to the first FIR, she filed an application before the Raha Police Station that she had filed the same due to misunderstanding and on the basis of the same, the said case resulted in final report. Thereafter he submits that after 6 months of the said submission of final report, she filed another case alleging same accusations against the petitioner and her son that she was assaulted, which resulted in filing of charge sheet by the Investigating Office on 26.12.2020 but after almost three months from filing of the charge sheet, the victim entered into an agreement with her husband by agreeing that the case was registered due to sudden provocation and that she will appear before the Court and settle the matter and also that there is no dispute amongst them. The learned Counsel further submits that however before settling the matter, the victim had lodged another complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon Assam stating about the same facts with the addition that petitioner and other accused person had tried to kill her by strangulating, which again resulted in the charge sheet as stated above. He further submits that it did not rest at that and that the victim had filed the case under the Domestic Violence Act stating the same facts. The learned Counsel further submits that in the charge sheet submitted in connection with the Raha PS Case No. 159/2021 most of the columns are unfilled and for the sake of filing the charge sheet, the same was filed against the petitioner and others. He as such Page No.# 9/15 submits that the conduct of the victim was only to harass the petitioner and other family members. 10. To substantiate his case, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., Reported in 2021(5) SCC 435, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident should be deprecated. He also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tarak Dash Mukharjee and Ors. and Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., Reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 2121 by which the Apex Court had held that registration of multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in Sharif Ahmed Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Reported in (2024) 14 SCC 122, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that charge sheet should be properly filed by the Investigating Officer. 11. On the other hand, Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 had stated that the quashing of cases can only be entertained if the case or the FIR does not prima facie show commission of cognizable offence. He further submits that in one particular case quashing of all the FIRs filed by the informant together with the case under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be entertained. He submits that all the FIRs filed by the informant do make out a cognizable offence and as such is not amenable for quashment of the same. He took the Court with the contentions Page No.# 10/15 made in the case filed under the Domestic Violence Act and submitted the various atrocities being meted out to the victim. 12. I have heard the Counsel and also have gone through the records. 13. It is not unknown that in cases of matrimonial disputes, the victim for saving the marriage enters into an agreement with her husband and her in laws and tries to continue her conjugal life. In the instant case, it is seen that she had lodged the first FIR on 18.06.2020, after merely 4 months of her marriage to her husband, wherein she stated that on the day prior at around 07:00 pm, the petitioner along with others had demanded dowry and abused her. She specifically stated that on the instigation of the petitioner, her husband tried to kill her with a knife and also tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil upon her. However, this FIR was stated to have been lodged on misunderstanding by the informant and the said case was closed by order dated 28.12.2020. However, even before the order was passed i.e. 28.12.2020 but after the final report was submitted on the basis of her application, she lodged another FIR on 05.12.2020 stating inter alia that the petitioner along with others had again abused her and demanded dowry and that the petitioner threw hot boiling water upon her and her husband also tried to kill her. In respect of the said FIR, charge sheet was submitted but subsequently thereto an agreement was reached between the informant and her husband that they will settle the matter and will stay as husband and wife but before the matter was settled before the Court, she again lodged the Page No.# 11/15 complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon stating apart from the facts, she had already stated beforehand that on 25.05.2021, the petitioner along with others have demanded Rs. 10 lakhs as dowry and had tried to kill her by strangulating. This FIR had resulted in lodging of the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer. In State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, Reported in (1992) Supplementary (1) SCC 335. It has been held as under; "8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given 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 guide- ï7 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) 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; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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; (c) 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; Page No.# 12/15 (d) 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; (e) 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; (f) 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; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. [305D-H; 306A-E] 8.2. In the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justi- ï7 on and this case does not call for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. itself." 14. By applying the aforesaid analogy enshrined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this case will be looked into. The allegations made in the First Information Report, which resulted in registration of the case being PS Case No. 299 of 2020 taken at their face value do constitute a prima facie case against the petitioner. It is stated in clear terms that petitioner along with others had demanded dowry Page No.# 13/15 from her and that petitioner had thrown hot boiling water upon her. It is also stated that her husband had tried to kill her with a machete. As such, it is seen that the allegations made in the FIR constitute a cognizable offence and as such, the same cannot result in quashing. The charge sheet which is submitted in connection with the said case also reflects prima facie case against the petitioner and although an agreement was entered into between the informant and her husband, the same had not resulted in withdrawing the case from the Court. It is also noticed that when the first case was closed on submission of the final report, the Court had asked the victim informant to file a formal complaint to proceed with her case. This shows that the informant had intimated the Court about the further torture meted out to her. 15. After the facts narrated in the FIR resulting in registration of the case i.e. Raha PS Case No. 299/2020, a further serious offence is mentioned to the effect that petitioner threw hot boiling water upon her which was not mentioned in her first FIR. The third complaint which was lodged on 09.06.2021 before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, the informant had not only stated the history of her torture meted out by the petitioner as well as other family members, had further stated that on 25.05.2021, she was evicted from the house of her husband on being showing her inability to pay the dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs. A further allegation is also made that the petitioner and other members of the family had tried to kill her by strangulating. As such, it is seen that although the root of the case appears similar in all the reports filed by the Page No.# 14/15 informant before the Police Officer but every time new and graver allegations are made against the petitioner and others. In Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, Reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that in cases where serious nature of offence is reflected in the subsequent FIR, the said FIR will not be construed as a second FIR. It has been held as under: "The First Information Report is a very important document, besides that it sets the machinery of criminal law in motion. It is a very material document on which the entire case of the prosecution is built. Upon registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a case, collection of evidence during investigation and formation of the final opinion is the sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173 of the Code. The possibility that more than one piece of information is given to the police officer in charge of a police station, in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences, cannot be ruled out. Other materials and information given to or received otherwise by the investigating officer would be statements covered under Section 162 of the Code. The Court in order to examine the impact of one or more FIRs has to rationalise the facts and circumstances of each case and then apply the test of ‘sameness’ to find out whether both FIRs relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence, are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences. If the answer falls in the first category, the second FIR may be liable to be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved, whether the version of the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible, This is the view expressed by this Court in the case of Babu Babubhai v. State of Gujarat Page No.# 15/15 and Ors. [(2010) 12 SCC 254]. This judgment clearly spells out the distinction between two FIRs relating to the same incident and two FIRs relating to different incident or occurrences of the same incident etc." 16. By applying the analogy mentioned above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the instant case reflects that every time more serious and graver offence is stated by the victim in the First Information Report. Furthermore, the First Information Reports, do make out a cognizable offence and as such, the same is not amenable for quashing. 17. Further the case filed by the victim under the Domestic Violence Act is on a different campus. The said case is not a criminal case and the same will only result in giving certain protection to the victim. It is a beneficial legislation in favor of the aggrieved person. In the said application, it is seen that the victim had narrated the torture meted upon by her by the petitioner and others persons and as such, this Court does not deem it fit to quash the same. 18. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant