High CourtsSingle Bench(2016) 10 GAU CK 0011

Ravinder Kumar Anand vs State of Assam

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 4 October 2016 · Citation: (2017) 1 GauLR 582

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mr. Ajit Singh, CJ.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Pet. 779 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 312 words

Mr. Ajit Singh, C.J. - Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2.

Mr. M Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3.

Heard on admission.

4.

In the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of First Information Report dated 5.5.2016 (Annexure-A) lodged by respondent No.2 against them at Jalukbari Police Outpost.

5.

In the First Information Report, respondent No.2 has alleged that his father who is aged 86 years has been cheated by the petitioners intentionally and wilfully by showing different fake and fraudulent documents that they were the owners of more than 55 Bighas of land and received a huge consideration, whereas it was found that area of land was much less.

6.

According to the petitioners, they are on bail. The petitioners also submit that the entire dispute between them and the father of respondent No.2 is of civil nature. The petitioners have also filed certain documents regarding agreement, power of attorney, sale deed etc. of the land in question.

7.

It is now well settled that the police is under a statutory obligation to register and investigate every First Information Report relating to commission of cognisable offence. The police of concerned police station have thus registered the First Information Report of respondent No.2 wherein serious allegation of cheating is made against the petitioners. The allegations made deserve investigation and the petitioners are free to put up their case in defence before the Investigating Officer. Also the Code of Criminal Procedure confers ample power to the Investigating Officer to submit a closure report if during investigation the allegations are found to be false. Even the petitioners have lodged First Information Reports against the father of respondent. For these reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition.

8.

The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.