GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SHEIKH NOOR ISLAM V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 14 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 13:

1. Heard Mr. L. K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the informant/respondent No. 2 and Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state respondent.

2. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR dated 05.07.2019 pertaining to Bhangagarh PS Case No. 242/2019 registered under Section 420 of IPC and subsequent FIR dated 10.07.2019 in connection with Bhangagarh PS Case No. 252/2019 under Section 120 (B)/420 of IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.2019 the respondent/informant no. 2 had lodged an FIR alleging inter alia that on 05.07.2019 at about 1.00 PM the petitioner and his some masons started digging and were installing some pillar in the disputed area between the two buildings in questions thereby violating the compromise and settlement agreement entered between them before the Paltan Bazar Police station in the year 2001 being GEE No. 293. Accordingly a case was registered as Bhangagarh PS Case No. 242/2019 under Section 420 of IPC. Thereafter, another FIR on 10.07.2019 was filed by the respondent against the petitioner/accused being Bhangagarh PS Case No. 242/2019 under Section 120 (B)/420 IPC on the same allegations and the same incident by referring the earlier FIR dated 05.07.2019.

4. The informant/respondent No. 2 is the younger brother of the petitioner and they reside in the adjacent buildings and there has been a long period of boundary dispute going on between them. In fact, in the year 2001 also pursuant to both the parties lodging criminal complaints against each other, the matter was later on compromised and thereafter a compromise deed was executed between them on 06.07.2001.

5. Mr. L. K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation made in the two FIRs in question is purely civil in nature and no criminal offence whatsoever is made out.

6. Per contra, Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the informant/respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner has violated the terms of the settlement deed resulting in lodging the two FIRs in question.

7. Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent also fairly contends that the averments made in the FIR on the face of it does not constitute any criminal offence whatsoever. 8. I have given my prudent consideration to the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and also have perused the material available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62WpS1yF5riYZmwoerc2y5M4%2FXa%2Bm1NqXPFAsgLX9nbrcE&caseno=Crl.Pet./1375/2019&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010273842019&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.