Champa Saikia vs The State Of Assam And Anr

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.
th
8. Thereafter on 15 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