Gauhati High Court
Jalal Uddin Joaddar vs Azizul Hoque Sk. And Anr on 4 August, 2026
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010228992024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1450/2024
JALAL UDDIN JOADDAR
S/O MD. MAINUDDIN JOADDAR
R/O VILLAGE NO. 1 SIMULTAPU, P.O. SIMULTAPU, P.S. GOSSAIGAON, DIST.
KOKRAJHAR, BTR, ASSAM,
PIN-783361
VERSUS
AZIZUL HOQUE SK. AND ANR
S/O LATE ANAYETULLAH SK.
R/O VILL- NO. 2 SIMULTAPU PO. AND P.S. DHALIGAON,
P.O. SIMULTAPU, P.S. GOSSAIGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, BTR, ASSAM, PIN-
783361
2:MOFIZUL HOQUE SK.
S/OLATE ANAYETULLAH SK.
R/O VILL- NO. 2 SIMULTAPU P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON
P.O. SIMULTAPU
P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
BTR
ASSAM
PIN-78336
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B J MUKHERJEE, A SAHA,MS R SAHA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A IKBAL (R-1), MS. S SIDDIQUA (R-2),G IMTIAZ (R-2),MR.
A IKBAL (R-2),MS. J SARMA (R-1),G IMTIAZ (R-1),MS. M NATH (R-1)
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
04.08.2026
Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.
Ikbal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, is preferred by the petitioner
for quashing the entire proceeding of CR No. 52/2024, pending before the court
of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Gossaigaon.
3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the
petitioner herein was the Headmaster of Shimultapu High School, under
Gossaigaon Police Station and he lodged one FIR on 15.11.2020, against the
respondents herein and also against one Joynab Khatun for enforcement of the
land of the school. Upon the said FIR, Gossaigaon PS Case No. 526/2020, under
Section 120(B)/447 of the IPC, has been registered. Thereafter, police had
investigated the case and submitted charge sheet, being Charge Sheet No.
339/2020, dated 31.12.2020 and the said case was registered as PRC Case No.
84/2021. He also submits that the respondent herein had also filed one title
suit, being Title Suit No. 13/2021, wherein the petitioner herein has filed written
statement/counter claim.
3.1. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that, in the meantime, the respondents
herein had filed one complaint case, being Compalint Case No. 114/2023, under
Section 193/196/199/200 of the IPC, against the petitioner herein, which was
renumbered as CR No. 52/2024 and upon which, the learned trial court had
taken cognizance, vide order dated 11.06.2024. And the said case has been
Page No.# 3/7
filed alleging discrepancies in the written statement/counter claim and in the
FIR of police case.
3.2. Mr. Mukherjee also submits that the learned trial court while taking
cognizance had ignored the provision of Section 195 of the CrPC, which provides
that no court shall take cognizance of the offence except upon the complaint
lodged by the court and that since the learned trial court had taken cognizance
of the offence under Section 193/196/199/200 of the IPC, in contravention of
the statutory bar under Section 195 of the CrPC, the impugned proceeding is
liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Ikbal, learned counsel for the respondents, fairly
submits that some lapses were there on the part of the respondents. However,
he has pointed it out that the offences mentioned in the complaint case is
clearly made out against the present petition and as such, he has contended to
dismiss this petition. Alternatively he also contends to remand the matter to the
learned trial court for fresh consideration.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this
Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed
on record and also gone through the relevant provision, i.e. Section 195 of the
CrPC.
6. Section 195 of the CrPC reads as under:-
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of
public servants, for offences against public justice
and for offences relating to documents given in
evidence–
(1) No Court shall take cognizance–
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under
Page No.# 4/7
sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)
of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of
1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to
commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit
such offence, except on the complaint
in writing of the public servant
concerned or of some other public
servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any
of the following sections of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
namely, sections 193 to 196 (both
inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211
(both inclusive) and 228, when such
offence is alleged to have been
committed in, or in relation to, any
proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section
463, or punishable under section 471,
section 475 or section 476, of the
said Code, when such offence is
alleged to have been committed in
respect of a document produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in
any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit,
or attempt to commit, or the abetment
of, any offence specified in sub-
clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), 1
[except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by
Page No.# 5/7
such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in
writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which
that Court is subordinate.]”
6.1. Thus, it appears that Section 195(1)(b)(III) bars the court in taking
cognizance of the offence under Section 193/196/199/200 of the IPC, except
upon a complaint lodged by that court or by such office of the court at that
court may authorize in writing. However, the complaint was filed by the
respondents who were neither officers of the court authorized in writing to file
the same.
7. Further, in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajanlal
and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, while
dealing with the scope of power under Section 482 CrPC and under Article 226
of the Constitution of India in quashing the criminal proceeding, in paragraph
No. 102, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases 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 channelized
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
Page No.# 6/7report 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR 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.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or com- plaint 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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
Page No.# 7/7
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) 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.”
8. In the instant case, the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the
offence under Section 193/196/199/200 of the IPC, upon the complaint lodged
by the respondents, which was indisputably not lodged by the court or by the
officer authorized in writing in its behalf and in express contravention to the
provision of Section 195(1)(b)(III) of the CrPC. As such, the case falls under the
category of cases described under Clause 6 of the paragraph No. 102 of the
aforesaid judgment. Therefore, inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS
corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC can be exercised to prevent the abuse
of process of the court and also to secured end of justice.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition
and accordingly, the same stands allowed.
10. The impugned proceeding, being CR No. 52/2024, stands set aside and
quashed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
