GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed the criminal petition filed by Indian Youth Congress (IYC) president Srinivas BV seeking quashing of an FIR filed by expelled Assam Congress leader Angkita Dutta, observing that “no interference is called for in the FIR in question in exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of the court”.
The IYC chief had filed the petition under Section 482 Cr. PC in the High Court for quashing of the case filed by Dutta under Sections 509 /294/341/352/354/354A (iv)/506 of the IPC read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Observing that there is “no indication” in the case diary that the FIR is politically motivated and based on some false and concocted story, the High Court refused to accept Srinivas’ plea seeking quashing of the FIR wherein Dutta had accused him of harassment and outraging her modesty.
“The nature of offences disclosed in the FIR are crimes against the society being basically pertaining to outraging the modesty of a woman,” the bench of Justice Ajit Borthakur stated.
“As the alleged offences were committed physically and electronically, continuously for about six months at Raipur and Guwahati, immediately preceding the filing of the FIR on April 19, 2023 cannot be said that the FIR was lodged on April 19, 2023 after inordinate delay without explanation,” the court observed before rejecting the petitioner’s plea to quash the FIR.
Dutta had alleged she was heckled and threatened by Srinivas in a Congress session at Chhattisgarh in February 2023, and that he had threatened her with dire consequences if she complained before the high office-bearers of the Youth Congress.
Senior advocate K.N. Choudhury, representing Srinivas, contended that the allegations made in the FIR were not only vague, fabricated and an afterthought, “but are a result of political vendetta”.
Choudhury contended that if the investigation in the case is allowed to continue, it would be an abuse of the process of law and further, the FIR, apart from being without jurisdiction, does not at all make out the basic ingredients of the penal sections under which the case has been registered by police and as such.
The counsel further contended that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tactic to create pressure on the accused.
He argued that the alleged heckling of the victim took place in Raipur, Chhattisgarh only and hence, the registration of the FIR by Dispur Police Station is not only mala fide but also without jurisdiction.
It was further submitted that a perusal of the FIR does not disclose as to the manner in which the alleged outraging comments were made and more particularly, where such comments were made.
He also pointed out that the delay in filing of the FIR by the alleged victim has not been sufficiently explained.
Opposing the petition, Advocate General, Assam, Devajit Saikia, who is representing the state in the case, submitted that law has not specified any limitation or time for lodging FIR and therefore, a delayed FIR in any case cannot operate as fatal.
The Advocate General also submitted that the petition should be dismissed as the petitioner has been repeatedly making efforts to give a political colour to the cognisable allegations of serious nature pertaining to outraging modesty of the victim informant.
