Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 20 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 1 April, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                 Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010027622023




                                                          undefined

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

                           Case No. : Crl.Pet./406/2023

         KOUSTUV MITRA
         S/O LATE SATYA BRATA MITRA
         R/O BARTHAKUR MILL ROAD, ULUBARI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR,
         DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM
         PIN-781007

         2: SRI SHUBHAM AGGARWAL
          S/O JITENDRA AGGARWAL

         R/O B-8/2
         SECOND FLOOR
         KRISHNA NAGAR

         DELHI
         PIN-110051

         3: M/S LB MEDISERVICES PVT. LTD.

          REP BY ITS DIRECTOR-CUM-AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
          DR. INDIRA BARTHAKU

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
         REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

         2:SRI SATYAJIT DEKA
          S/O CHITRAMAL DEKA
         R/O HOUSE NO. 46
          BELTOL
          KHARGHULI
         P.S. LATASIL
          GUWAHATI
                                                                           Page No.# 2/5

             DIST. KAMRUP (METRO)
             ASSAM

             PIN-781004

             3:SMTI. KARISHMA KAYAL
             W/O SRI ABHIJITA KARNANI
             R/O FLAT NO. 4B1

             DISHA ENCLAVE
             ARUNODOI PATH

             OPPOSITE CENTRAL MALL

             CHRISTIAN BASTI
             GUWAHATI-781005
             DIST. KAMRUP (M)
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K K DUTTA, MR. DEBANUJ DUTTA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. K BHARALI,S ACHUMI (R-1,2,3),MR. D K
BHATTACHARYYA (r-1,2,3)




                                      :: BEFORE ::
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA


                                       O R D E R

01.04.2025

Heard Ms. P. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2.

2. This is a joint application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), praying for quashing the FIR in respect of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No.191/2022 under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

Page No.# 3/5

3. The first petitioner being the proprietor of the third petitioner (M/S. LB Mediservices Pvt. Ltd.), had lodged an FIR before police alleging that the second respondent Mr. Satyajit Deka and the second petitioner Mr. Shubham Aggarwal along with third respondent Ms. Karishma Kayal had colluded and connived to hatch a conspiracy against the third petitioner company. It may be mentioned that Satyajit Deka and Karishma Kayal were employees of the said company.

4. An entity by the name of Probha Legal Associates from Kolkata served a legal notice upon the third petitioner company. It was mentioned in the said notice that Satyajit Deka and Karishma Kayal had collected approximately one crore sixty five lakhs in cash and about twenty lakhs through RTGS in their personal accounts from the second petitioner Mr. Shubham Aggarwal, as sale proceeds in respect of sale of a plot of land. Those monetary transactions were not reflected in the books of accounts of the company.

5. It is alleged that the aforementioned persons had procured the signatures of a 75 year lady who is the Chairman of the company.

6. Now, the first petitioner Koustuv Mitra being the defacto owner of the third petitioner M/S. L.B. Mediservices Pvt. Ltd. and the second petitioner Shubham Aggarwal have jointly field this petition praying for quashing the FIR lodged by Koustuv Mitra himself. They have explained that on 29.08.2022, they have settled their dispute.

7. In the meantime, the respondent Satyajit Deka has also filed an affidavit-in- opposition wherein he claimed that the allegation brought against him in the FIR are false because the e-mails sent to him are in his favour. The print outs of the e-mails are also annexed with the affidavit.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

9. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , AIR Page No.# 4/5

1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases 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 guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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. (3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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. (6) 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.

(7) 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."

10. The petitioner Koustuv Mitra has alleged that the money collected by Satyajit Deka and Karishma Kayal were deposited in the Bank Account of the second petitioner Shubham Aggarwal. Now, Koustuv Mitra and Shubham Aggarwal have settled their Page No.# 5/5

disputes and prayed for quashing the FIR lodged by the former. In that case, if the FIR is quashed nothing remain against Satyajit Deka and Karishma Kayal. In such a circumstance, there is no possibility of conviction of anybody in future. Thus, allowing such a criminal proceeding to continue before a trial court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

11. This is a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed.

12. Accordingly, the FIR in respect of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No.191/2022 under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside.

The Criminal Petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant