Montu Satnami vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 8367 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Montu Satnami vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 14 November, 2024

Author: Malasri Nandi

Bench: Malasri Nandi

                                                                 Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010214942023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./1041/2023

            MONTU SATNAMI
            S/O LATE BAGNATE SATNAMI
            R/O AIDEOKATHANIGAON
            P.O. AIDEOKATHANIGAON
            P.S. SONARI
            DIST. CHARAIDEO, ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:SMTI. SAMBOTI SATNAMI
             W/O LATE SAMBHU SATNAMI
            C/O JAYDEWAL SATNAMI
            R/O AIDEOBARI KATHORIGAON
            P.O. AIDEOPUKHURI
            P.S. SONARI
            DIST. CHARAIDEO
            ASSAM
            PIN- 78244

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B P SINHA, MR. D GOGOI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. M K MISRA (R-2)




                                  BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

                                           ORDER

Page No.# 2/7

14.11.2024

Heard Mr. B.P Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional PP, representing the State.

2. By filing this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the FIR, the charge sheet and the entire proceeding of PRC case No. 136/2023 pending in the court of Learned JMFC, Charaideo.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant lodged an FIR on 08/12/2021 before the OC, Charaideo PS that she is the widow of late Sambu Satnami who was a Railway employee of NF Railways under Sapakhati Railway Station as a trackman who died on 20/10/2017 while he was on his service. After his death two persons namely the present petitioner and another person came to the resident of the informant and assured her that they facilitated to get gratuity amount, provident fund, monthly family pension etc., due to her deceased husband from the concerned railway authority. Accordingly, on good faith the informant had given them her thumb impression, original document papers etc. They assured that they would help the informant in getting the retirement benefits from the concerned department as early as possible.

4. It is also stated in the FIR that since the year 2017, the informant did not receive any money from the concerned department. Thereafter, the informant went to the office of DRM, Tinsukia to enquire about the pension and pensionary benefits to her deceased husband and came to know that the entire death cum pensionary benefits of the informant's deceased husband was released on her account vide Ac No. 00000039749152705 of SBI, Mathurapur Branch. The official also informed that soon after the death of her husband, Page No.# 3/7

the pension amount has been deposited in her said account.

5. But the informant did not have any bank account in her name. Then she immediately informed the officials of the DRM, Tinsukia and visited the SBI, Mathurapur Branch, wherein she came to know that the retirement benefit of the informant's deceased husband was deposited in the aforesaid account. After the inquiry it came to the knowledge that the present petitioner and the co-accused had opened a fake account in the name of the informant and the account details have been submitted in the office of the DRM, Tinsukia to release the retirement benefits/provident fund of the informant's deceased husband. Subsequently, the petitioner and the co-accused had withdrawn and transferred the entire amount in their account. Accordingly, a case was registered vide Sonari PS case no. 285/2021.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the younger brother of the informant. The co-accused Mahesh Satnami is the nephew of the informant. The informant stated in her statement before the investigating officer that all of them knew each other being relatives and residing in the same locality. It is further submitted that on 31/10/2022, the informant sworn an affidavit by stating that as the FIR named accused persons are close relatives, the matter has been settled as such she wanted to withdraw the case.

7. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of settlement between the parties, the investigating officer failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused which is palpably wrong.

Page No.# 4/7

8. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no direct or indirect involvement in the instant case. Whatever had happened it was between the informant and the co-accused Mahesh Satnami. There were transactions between the informants account to the account of Mahesh Satnami. As such the continuation of the proceeding of the case against the petitioner would cause serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of law.

9. In response, learned Additional PP, has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature which involves embezzlement of money of the informant. Though the petitioner stated that the matter has been settled between the parties but no any compromise deed or declaration of the informant is available in the record which discloses that the petitioner has compromised the matter with the petitioner and the co-accused being her relatives. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed for dismissal of the quashing petition.

10. The offence alleged against the petitioner is u/s 406/419/420/468/471 of IPC. The documents that are allegedly generated are undoubtedly with a dishonest intention right from the inception. A forgery or cheating of this kind if interdicted in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. it would be putting a premium on the alleged activities of the petitioner.

11. An act or a fact would give rise to two circumstances - one setting civil law into motion and the other criminal law. Merely because the issue projected is civil, it is no law that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should obliterate the crime. It is a matter of evidence which cannot be deciphered at this stage of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Page No.# 5/7

Cr.P.C.

12. The Apex Court from time to time has held that merely because the issue projected appears to be civil, this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot undertake a mini trial. The Apex Court in the case of MAHESH CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 439, has held as follows:

".... ....11. The principle providing for exercise of the power by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding is well known. The Court shall ordinarily exercise the said jurisdiction, inter alia, in the event the allegations contained in the FIR or the complaint petition even if on face value are taken to be correct in their entirety, does not disclose commission of an offence.

12. It is also well settled that save and except in very exceptional circumstances, the Court would not look to any document relied upon by the accused in support of his defence. Although allegations contained in the complaint petition may disclose a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. For the purpose of exercising its jurisdiction, the superior courts are also required to consider as to whether the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint petition fulfill the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused."

13. The Apex Court in the case of PRITI SARAF v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) reported in (2021) 16 SCC 142, has held as follows:

".... ... 31. In the instant case, on a careful reading of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in our view, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would like to add that whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be Page No.# 6/7

decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482CrPC for quashing such proceedings."

14. The Apex Court, in its latest judgment, in the case of CBI v. ARYAN SINGH, reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 379, has held as follows:

"..... .... 10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".

15. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, what would unmistakably emerge is that this petition cannot be entertained at this stage as prima facie forging of documents and taking benefits of such forgery is established against the petitioner. It is no law that merely because an issue brought before the Page No.# 7/7

court appears to be civil and is standing on the heels of crime, it should be obliterated.

16. Hence, this criminal petition lacking in merit stands dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending between the parties before the trial court.

17. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant