Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010181212022 2026:GAU-AS:14287 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./920/2022 SELIM UDDIN CHOUDHURY AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE BASIR ALI R/O LAHORIJAN, NEAR KARBI ANGLONG TAX GATE, P.S. KHATKHATI, DIST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM 2: MRS. RUKIA BEGUM W/O MD. SELIM UDDIN CHOUDHURY R/O LAHORIJAN NEAR KARBI ANGLONG TAX GATE P.S. KHATKHATI DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 3: MISS. AYESHA BEGUM CHOUDHURY D/O MD. SELIM UDDIN CHOUDHURY R/O LAHORIJAN NEAR KARBI ANGLONG TAX GATE P.S. KHATKHATI DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. JORINA BEGUM W/O MD. ABDUL KALAM R/O LAHARIJAN NEAR KARBI ANGLONG TOOL TAX GATE P.S. KHATKHATI DIST. KARBI ANGLONG Page No.# 2/9 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K MUNIR, MR. A GAYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S ROY,M. HOSSAIN,MR. M H LASKAR BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 25.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned APP for the State. 2. By this application filed under section 482 of this CrPC, read with article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for setting aside and quashing of the P.R.C Case No. 117 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 595/2021. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside and quashing of the order of cognizance dated 25-05-2022, passed in the said PRC case as well as the subsequent orders. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, an FIR was lodged on 24-07-2021 by one Jarina Bengum before the Officer-in-Charge of Khatkhati Police Station stating inter alia that, the petitioners had cheated her, first by offering her to help in releasing her husband who was in Diphu jail and secondly, by taking her signatures on many blank papers including Non-Judicial paper and also by taking cash to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with the Page No.# 3/9 promise that they will get her husband released from jail. It is also stated in the said FIR, that the petitioner no.1 had threatened her to leave the place considering her as a tenant. She further stated that, the petitioner no. 1, is not her landlord and that she is a tenant of one Shri Tahjul Islam and the tenancy agreement has been entered into with said Tahjul Islam by her husband. 4. She also stated that she was surprised when she got a legal notice on 23- 07-2021 through the advocate of petitioner no.1, directing her to vacate his house. She stated that, many documents were taken from her on the pretext of getting her husband out of jail and she suspects that one of such documents was used and a fraud agreement was made between petitioner no. 3 and her husband. 5. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered the case as Khatkhati PS Case No. 134/2029, under section 120(B) as well as 420 of IPC. 6. On completion of the investigation, the police, upon finding no evidence to connect the accused person with the offence, had submitted a final report on 31-08-2021, vide Final Report No. 48/2021. In the said final report, it was stipulated that the Investigating Officer tried to get witnesses against the accused, but no witnesses and no evidence was found. 7. It was stipulated further that a verbal argument might have taken place Page No.# 4/9 between the petitioners and the informant, which is not known by any person and as such, final report was submitted. 8. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the submission of the final report, the concerned court had given notice to the informant but the informant had not filed any protest petition and that, she did not appear before the court and the court had accepted the final report, vide order dated 15-10-2022. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the final report was submitted and before the final report was accepted by the court, the informant had filed another FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, stating the same facts, that she had stated in the first FIR along with certain additional facts to the effect that, on 20-10-2021, some workers had come to her house to repair certain things and that the petitioner no.1 and his wife had threatened the said workers to leave the place immediately. It was also alleged in the FIR that petitioner no.1, had threatened her in various ways to withdraw the complaint or else he will trap her in some false case. It was also stated that petitioner no.1, used to come to her room and abuse her with vulgar words in front of her children and in absence of her husband. 9. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered the case as Khatkhati PS Page No.# 5/9 Case No. 220/2021 under section 420, 294 as well as 509 of IPC. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet in connection with the said case on 31-20-2022, vide Charge-sheet No. 8/2022. In the said Charge- sheet, it was stipulated that a prima facie case is established against the petitioners, who are three in numbers and the said Charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter, the Charge-sheet was submitted before the SDJM Bokajan Karbi Anglong, who had transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bokajan Karbi Anglong, and the court of JMFC, Bokajan Karbi Anglong first class, vide order dated 25-05-2022, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 294 as well as 509 of IPC against the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further placed the order sheets, which reflects that on 02.05.2026, the present case was taken up for charge framing but the Court fixed the next hearing date as 02.06.2026, and the matter rested at that and a further date was fixed on 02.11.2026. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as far as offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned, same allegations were written in the previous FIR, dated 24.07.2021, which resulted in Final Report as stated above. With regard to the offence under Section 294 of the IPC, the counsel submits that, although there are allegations that petitioner no. 1 had shouted at her by Page No.# 6/9 using vulgar words but the same was not in public place, which is the mandatory requirements under the said section and as such, he submits that the said offence is not attracted in the instant case. Further with regard to the offence under Section 509 of the IPC, the learned counsel submits that, the specific allegation is only against the petitioner no. 1, who is stated to have threatened her in various ways to withdraw the complaint or that he will trap her in some false case. He submits that, there is no outraging of modesty of the informant by the petitioner nos. 2 & 3. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State, Mr. B. Sarma, submits that, the ingredients of Sections 420, 294, 509 of IPC, are present in the complaint lodged by the informant. He also submits that, the cognizance of the offence taken under the said Section was based on materials on record and as such, he submits that, there is no question of quashing of the said case along with the cognizance order. 13. I have heard, the learned counsels and gone through the records. It is seen that the First FIR lodged by the informant, namely, Jarina Bengum, which was registered under Sections 120(B)/420 of the IPC, resulted in final report submitted by the police, vide Final Report No. 48/2021, dated 31/08/2021. In the said final report, it was stated that, no evidence was found and although, Page No.# 7/9 there could be some verbal argument between petitioners and the informant, but the same was stated to have not been heard by any witness and as such, the case was dropped against the petitioners. 14. It is thereafter, seen that same allegations were made against the petitioners in the second complaint lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, Assam, which were stated in the First FIR. The contents which were present in both the FIRs relating to the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, is not maintainable. However, the further allegations that were made in the subsequent FIR, calls for examination. It is a settled position of law that, a second FIR relating to the said cause of action, if discloses graver offence can be taken into account and registered. 15. In the instant case, it is seen that in the second FIR, it was stated that, petitioner nos. 1 & 2, came over to the place of the informant with weapons and forced the workers working in her house to leave the place. It was also stated that petitioner nos. 1 & 2 had abused her verbally to vacate the place. It was also stated that petitioner no. 1, as was referred in the complaint as “this person” had threatened her to withdraw the complaint or otherwise he will trap her in some false case. It is also stated that petitioner no. 1, had made her life a hell and used to enter her room and abuse her with vulgar words. Page No.# 8/9 15. In the said allegation, the name of petitioner no.3, did not find place. It is to be mentioned that, petitioner no. 3, was only alleged to have entered into a agreement with the husband of the informant with regard to tenancy agreement. There are otherwise no allegations against the petitioner no.3. Further in the charge-sheet, laid in pursuance of the said case had not mentioned any allegations to have been established against the petitioner no.3. As such, the FIR registered as Khatkhati P. S. Case No. 220/2021, the Charge- sheet being, Charge-sheet No. 8/2022, dated. 30.01.2022, as well as the cognizance order dated 25.05.2022, are quashed with regard to the petitioner no. 3. 16. However, in case of petitioner nos. 1 & 2, there are allegations that both of them had abused and forced her to vacate the place. Although the same allegations of cheating was there in the earlier FIR but in the subsequent FIR, more graver allegations were leveled & as such, the offence of 420 of IPC is attracted. As far as allegation under Section 294 of the IPC is concerned, it is not clear from the FIR, as to whether, the vulgar words were stated inside the house or at a place, which is considered as a public place as per various Supreme Court’s judgments. Further, as far as offence under Section 509 of the IPC is concerned, it is seen that allegations were made only against petitioner no. 1, and there is no allegation against petitioner no. 2. As such, the Page No.# 9/9 cognizance taken by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bokajan, Karbi Anglong for offence under Section 509 IPC against Petitioner no. 2; is set aside and quashed. 17. In view of the findings and conclusions mentioned hereinabove, this petition is as such, partly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant