Tuesday, June 27, 2017 | ePaper

Correctness of allegations to be resolved only at the trial

  • Print
High Court Division :
(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
Sheikh Abdul Awal J
Shahidul Karim J
Sheikh Saniat Ialam and others ……….
……. Accused - Petitioners
vs
State …Opposite-Party
Judgment
November 3rd    , 2016
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 561A
Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain (8 of 2000)
Sections 11(Ga)/30
There are specific allegations of dowry against the accused which prima-facie discloses an offence under the Ain. The contentions as raised by the accused petitioners that the marriage was not solemnized in accordance with law, the informant is not the wife of accused and the allegations made against the accused in the FIR and charge sheet are frivolous, baseless, omnibus and not believable, are purely disputed question of facts which can be decided only at the trial on taking evidence. .. .... (9)
Shaikh Forhadul Haque, Advocate-For the Petitioners.
Md. Fazlur Rahman Khan, DAG with Md Ali Jinnah, AAG-For the State.
Judgment
Sheikh' Abdul Awal J : This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to by the proceeding of Nari-o-Shishu Case No. 63 of 2013 arising out of Paickgacha Police Station Case No. 39 dated 2010-2012 corresponding to GR No. 555 of 2012 under Sections 1l(Ga)/30 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003), now pending in the Court of Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Khulna should not be quashed and/or pass such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
2. The relevant facts briefly are that one Most. Nazira Begum as informant on 20-10-2012 lodged an Ejahar with Paickgacha Police Station against the accused-petitioners and another stating, inter-alia, that on 28-8-2012 she was married to accused No.1 by registered kabinnama fixing Taka 2,50,000 as dower in accordance with Muslim Law. Sometime after the marriage accused No. 1 after being in advised by accused Nos. 2-6 demanded Taka 4,00,000 as dowry to the informant for the purpose of job and started torturing her mentally and physically for bringing the said Taka 4,00,000 from her parents. In this back ground, on 19-10-2012 at 6-30 pm the informant-opposite party finally refused to accept the demand whereupon the accused persons abused her and when the informant protested the accused No.1 beat her and other accused persons also assaulted her by inflicting blows and kicks.
3. Upon the aforesaid first information report, Paickgacha Police Station Case No. 39 dated 20-12-2012 was started under Sections 11(Ga)/30 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003) against the accused-petitioners and another. Police after completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet against all 6 accused persons including the present accused-petitioners under the aforesaid Section.
4. Thereafter, in usual course the case record was sent to the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Khulna for trial, wherein it was registered as Nari-o-Shishu Case No.63 of 2013. In the course of trial on 4-4-2013 the learned tribunal Judge upon hearing both the parties on considering the materials on record framed charge against all 6 accused persons under Sections 11(Ga)/30 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003).
5. Feeling aggrieved thereby the accused petitioners preferred this application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding of Nari-o-Shishu Case No. 63 of 2013 and obtained the present Rule.
6. Mr Shaikh Forhadul Haque, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused petitioners in the course of argument takes us through the FIR, Charge Sheet and other materials on record including the order of framing charge and then submits that the allegations as stated in the FIR and chargesheet against the accused-petitioners, who are father, mother, full brothers and neighbors of the accused No. 1 are frivolous, baseless and unbelievable and, as such, the continuation of the impugned proceeding against the accused petitioners clearly amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and it is liable to be quashed. This is the only ground urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioners.
7. Mr, Md. Ali Jinnah, learned Assistant Attorney-General, on the other hand, opposes the rule. He submits that the allegations made in the FIR and chargesheet undoubtedly disclosed strong prima-facie case under Sections 11(Ga)/30 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003) against the accused petitioners. Finally, the learned Assistant Attorney-General submits that whether the allegations as brought against the accused-petitioners in the FIR and chargesheet are believable or not can be ascertained only on taking evidence at the trial, the proceeding against the accused petitioners cannot be quashed.
8. We have considered the submission of the learned Advocate for the accused petitioners and the learned Assistant Attorney General and perused the FIR, charge sheet and other materials on record including the order of framing charge dated. 4-4-2013.
9. On going through the FIR and chargesheet, it appears that there are specific allegations of beating and assaulting of the informant-victim for dowry against the accused petitioners which prima-facie discloses an offence under Sections 11(Ga)/30 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003). It further appears that in this case the learned Judge of Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal on considering the entire materials on record framed charge against the accused petitioners and another under Sections 11(Ga)/30 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003). The contentions as raised by the learned Advocate for the accused petitioners that the marriage was not solemnized in accordance with law, the informant opposite party is not. the wife of accused No.1 and the allegations made against the accused petitioners in the FIR and chargesheet are frivolous, baseless, omnibus and not believable, are purely disputed question of facts which can be decided only at the trial on taking evidence.
10. This argument in defending the Rule issued on application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of a proceeding under Sections 11(Ga)/30 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003) is fallacious as well as misconceived. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submissions made by Mr Shaikh Forhadul Haque.
11. The correctness of the allegations can be resolved only at the trial.
12. In the result, the Rule is discharged.
The order of stay granted earlier by this court is hereby vacated.
13. The learned Judge of Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Khulna is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously accordance with law.
Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the court concerned at once.

More News For this Category

Meaning of re-import

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Miftah UddinChoudhury J ANM Mashir Ullah J     Elaine Apparels Limited ..............Petitioner     vs Commissioner of Customs, Chittagong And others.............. .............. Respondents

Appointment of Special Judge

Appellate Division :(Civil) Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ Syed Mahmud Hossain J Hasan Foez Siddique J Mirza Hussain Haider J Md Bazlur Rahman J Anti-Corruption Commission, Dhaka and others...........Petitioners vsAbdul

Enormous number of suits piled up before 'the Land Survey Tribunal'

Md. Mukhlasur Rahman :Background of the critique: We know that recently a special kind of court, namely "the Land Survey Tribunals" has been constituted by innovation in our country

Company men can only be determined upon taking evidence during trial

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)AKM Asaduzzaman JMd Iqbal Kabir JMozahar Sowdagor (Md) and others.....PetitionersvsState and another..........Opposite-PartiesJudgmentFebruary 3rd, 2016Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881) Section 140 In the first part

Arms, ammunition for army supply cannot be possessed by ordinary persons

High Court Division :(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Quamrul Islam Siddique J AKM Zahirul Hoque J Moshiur Rahman Bhuiyan @ Babu  .... Accused-Appellant vsState......... Opposite PartyJudgment March 9th, 2014 Arms Act

Bail in explosive substances case

High Court Division :(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Syed Md Ziaul  Karim J SM Zakir Hossam JShagor Prodhan .................................. Accused-Appellant vsState ..... Respondent*Judgment November 16th, 2016     Explosive Substance Act (VI

Due execution of 'Will'

High Court Division (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Quazi Reza-ul Hoque JJN Deb Choudhury JSukumar Nath and another ................................................Appellants vs Rupan Kanti Nath and another.............. .................................RespondentJudgmentJune 13th, 2017 Registration Act (XVI

Before fixing liabilities wrong doers be served with show cause notice

(From previous issue) :19. In the same vain, reliance may be placed to an unreported decision passed in writ petition no 10201 of 2015 dated 25-7-2016 in the case

Death Sentence : An analytical overview

Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan, Advocate :Punishment is, in real sense, an ultimate award paid to the criminals considering the range and degree of the crime. Though throughout the world

Alleged use of forged documents

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Salma MasudChowdhury JFRM Nazmul Ahasan JJudgment March 1st, 2016      Shahid Ullah (Md) .... .....................................Petitioner vs State and another................................Opposite-Parties   Code of Criminal