Crl.Pet./116/2017
2022 Latest Caselaw 5018 Gua

                                                                         Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010012502017




                     THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
         (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

                            PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI


                            Criminal Petition No. 116 of 2017


       Dr. Biman Chandra Chetia,
       S/o Late Hemo Chetia,
       Resident of Khelmati, Ward No. 14,
       P.S.- North Lakhimpur,
       District- Lakhimpur, Assam
                                                                ..................Petitioner


                    -Versus-




              1. The State of Assam,
              Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam.


              2. Achyut Das,
              S/o Shri Bhupen Das,
              R/o village - Sanatan Gaon,
              P.S.- North Lakhimpur,
              District - Lakhimpur,
              Pin-787001.


              3. Sri Bhaskar Jyoti Das,
                                                                                Page No.# 2/10

                 S/o Late Iswar Das,
                 R/o- village- Gharmara,
                 P.S- Lakhimpur,
                 District - Lakhimpur,
                 Pin- 787001
                                                                  ...............Respondents

Advocates for the petitioner       :     Mr R De
Advocate for the respondents       :     Mr K D Chetri,
                                         Mr B Sarma, Addl. P.P.




                                            BEFORE
                       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI


Date of Judgment               :   19.12.2022.


                               JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr R De, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State of Assam/respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr K D Chetri, learned

counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 for quashing of the FIR dated 05.03.16, registered as North Lakhimpur PS Case No. 230

of 2016, as well as of Charge sheet bearing No. 551/2016 dated 14.12.2016, under Sections

468/471 IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the Principal of North Lakhimpur

College, North Lakhimpur. On recommendation of the Governing Body of the College, the Page No.# 3/10

petitioner was appointed as the Principal of the said college. The petitioner had joined as

Principal in North Lakhimpur College, North Lakhimpur on 22.02.2012 and the petitioner had

joined in his service as Lecturer on 01.04.1992, in the said college. Since the petitioner had

possessed requisite qualification, the Selection Committee had selected him to the post of

Principal of the North Lakhimpur College, North Lakhimpur.

4. On 29.02.2016, an FIR was lodged in North Lakhimpur Police Station by one Achyut

Das, Bhaskar Jyoti Das, President and Secretary of All Assam Scheduled Castes Students

Union, Lakhimpur District Committee, stating inter alia that the present petitioner had used

fake, tampered unauthorized documents and certificates and certain rectifications were also

made by him for his career advancement programme of UGC and thereby using those false

documents and certificates, got himself selected and appointed to the post of Principal of

North Lakhimpur College, North Lakhimpur. On receipt of the said FIR, a case was registered

vide North Lakhimpur PS Case No. 230/2016, under Sections 468/471 IPC and after

completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner under the said

Sections of law.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informants had

collected the information through RTI filed by one Ratul Bora, and on the basis of the

information provided by him, they have levelled allegations against the present petitioner and

the FIR was the outcome of those information supplied by said Ratul Bora to the said

organization. It is also submitted that one lobby is constantly trying to oust the petitioner

from the post of Principal of North Lakhimpur College, North Lakhimpur, since the day he had

joined as Principal. Some unknown person or persons might have, for some illegal gain or

some personal interest, was doing all these nasty things against the petitioner.

Page No.# 4/10

6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing of the

FIR, since the petitioner apprehended arrest, he approached before this Court by filing a pre-

arrest bail application and the pre-arrest bail prayer was considered by passing an interim

order protecting the petitioner in the event of his arrest.

7. It is also submitted that when the bail application was taken up for hearing, this Court

directed the IO to properly conduct the case and re-submit the same before this Court by

fixing a date. Again, when the bail application was taken up for final hearing, this Court after

perusal of the record as well as the Case Diary, was of the view that the IO had made a

categorical enquiry as to the factum of the allegation so raised in the FiR and he had given a

detailed report to the effect that the petitioner could not be responsible for the correction if

any, made in the Service Book as well as the DPC matter. The said service book does not

reflect any sort of discrepancy as has been alleged in the FIR.

8. It is further contended that the DPC itself had made a corrigendum, rectifying their

mistake in the result of the DPC. It is also further argued that the present FIR has lodged not

by any concerned government authority but by the President/Secretary of All Assam

Scheduled Castes Students' Union, on the basis of some information supplied by another so

called RTI activist and an outsider, is not permissible to lodge the FIR against a person, who

is holding the post of Principal of North Lakhimpur College, North Lakhimpur, which is

governed by the UGC.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the informants had filed the

present FIR against the petitioner on the basis of the information supplied by one Ratul Bora,

which was received by him through RTI. Therefore, the informants are strangers to the Page No.# 5/10

allegations levelled against the petitioner and they are no way connected with the affairs of

the college and has nothing to do with the FIR. Therefore, it can be clearly understood that

the FIR has been lodged by the informants for some ulterior motive or for some personal gain

or on the behest of some other person. Hence, the lodging of FIR and subsequent filing of

charge sheet under Sections 468/471 IPC is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

10. It is also submitted that summoning of an accused is a serious matter and provision for

discharge does not bar remedy under Section 482 CrPC.

11. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following

case-laws:

1) 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.)

2) AIR 2009 SC 2594; (Keki Hormuji Gharda & Ors. V. Mehervan Rustam Irani & Anr.)

3) (2009) 3 SCC 78; (V. Y. Jose & Anr. V. State of Gujarat & Anr.

4) AIR 1998 SC 128 (Pepsi Foods Limited & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Anr.

5) (2009) 9 SCC 682 (M N Ojha & Ors. Vs. Alok Kr. Srivastav & Anr.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3 has argued that the

informants were the students of North Lakhimpur College and they are very much concerned

with the reputation of the premier institution of the district. If there was any such grave

allegation against the Principal of the College, which hampers career of the students and that

should be removed only by the Court proceeding, which cannot be quashed. It is also

submitted that duration of stay should not exceed six months unless extension is granted by

a specific speaking order.

Page No.# 6/10

13. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents cited one case-law:-

2018 AIR SC 2039 (Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. CBI)

14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the FSL Report apparently,

proves tampering of Service Book of the petitioner and Orientation Programme of DPC, which

may be proved only during trial. Hence, there is no question of quashing of proceeding at this

stage.

15. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well

as the respondents. I have also perused the scanned copy of the record of GR Case

No.502/2016, and the documents available in the record.

16. Having heard the argument of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record,

it reveals that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had made certain corrections in

his service book. Though the petitioner has contended that the IO has made a categorical

enquiry as to the factum of allegation so raised in the FIR and he has given a detailed report

to the effect that the petitioner cannot be responsible for such correction, if any, in the

Service Book as well as in the DPC matter but the fact remains is that the IO had submitted

charge sheet, as such, it cannot be stated at this stage that no prima facie material is found

against the petitioner. Such being the case, the learned Additional PP and the learned counsel

for the other respondents have rightly said that the matter should be decided through trial

and this Court cannot interfere at this stage and it cannot be considered that the allegations

against the petitioner have not attracted the ingredients of criminal offences. This Court

cannot go into investigating the allegations, appreciating the documents at this stage.

Therefore, in view of the judgment in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Priti Saraf and another Page No.# 7/10

vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., reported in Criminal Appeal No. 296/2021 [arising out of

SLP (Crl.) No. 6364 of 2019], the Apex Court in a similar situation had categorically held that

this Court cannot quash FIR by investigating the allegations. The Apex court had also taken a

similar view in Kaptan Singh vs. State of UP, in Criminal Appeal No. 787/2021.

17. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Bhai Chandu Bhai Patel vs. State of

Gujarat & Another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104, has summarized the principles while

exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR. The Apex Court in

this judgment has also held that-

"in order to examine as to whether the factual contents of FIR discloses any prima facie

cognizable offences or not, High Court cannot act like an investigating agency, and nor can

exercise power like an appellate Court. Question is required to be examined, keeping in view

contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof at such stage. High

Court cannot appreciate evidence nor draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and

materials relied on. It is more so when the material relied on is disputed, in such situation it

becomes the job of investigating authority at such stage to prove and then of the court to

examine questions once the charge sheet is filed along with such materials, as to how far and

to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. Once the Court finds that FIR does

disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow

investigating machinery to step into initiate the probe to unearth crime in accordance with

the procedure prescribed in CrPC".

18. Section 482 CrPC deals with inherent power of High Court.

"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court Page No.# 8/10

to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to

prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

19. Section 482 of the CrPC starts with "nothing in this Code". Thus, the inherent

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, can be exercised even when

there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The inherent power is to be used only in the cases where there is an abuse of the process of

the Court or where inference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. The

most common cases where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is fair criminal

proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatious or

without jurisdiction.

20. In the case of State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha; reported in (1980) 1 SCC 544,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"The High Court in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction committed a grave error by

making observations on seriously disputed questions of facts taking its cue from affidavits

which in such a situation would hardly provide any reliable material. The High Court was

clearly in error in giving the direction virtually amounting to a mandamus to close the case

before the investigation is complete, we say no more."

21. In the case of R. P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab; reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized some of the categories of cases where inherent power

should be exercised to quash the criminal proceeding against the accused stating-

"i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance, Page No.# 9/10

that is want of sanction.

ii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or complaint, taken at its effects

value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged.

iii) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or the

evidence adduced clearly or manifestly failed to prove the charge. Gajendragadkar J., who

spoke for the Court in Kapoor's case observes in his judgment that, it was not possible,

desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of the

High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The three instances cited in the judgment as to when the

High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction are only illustrative and can

in very nature of things not be regarded as exhaustive. Considerations justifying the exercise

of inherent powers for securing the ends of justice varying from case to case and a

jurisdiction as wholesome as the one conferred by Section 482 CrPC or not to be encased

within the straight jacket of a rigid formula."

22. Applying the aforesaid propositions of law, referred to hereinabove, this Court has

adverted to the entire record of the case.

23. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, call for adjudication on

pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial Court and

while doing so, even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately

gone into by the trial Court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper and, therefore,

cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. The perusal of the FIR

and the material collected by the Investigating Officer, on the basis of which, charge sheet Page No.# 10/10

has been submitted, makes out a prima facie case at this stage and there appears to be

sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused petitioner. I do not find any justification

to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the petitioner, as the case does not fall

in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court, which may justify their quashing.

24. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the case and, therefore,

prayers for quashing the FIR as well as subsequent charge sheet challenged in this criminal

petition, are hereby refused. This Court cannot interfere at this stage in the present facts and

circumstances of the case by exercising the power under Section 482 CrPC.

25. In the result, the criminal petition stands dismissed.

26. Stay order, if any, be vacated accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant