[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 17 December, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010280262025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1589/2025
RAJIB ROY AND ANR
SON OF LATE PRAFULLA CHANDRA ROY PRESENT ADDRESS OFFICE OF
THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, JORHAT. DISTRICT - JORHAT, POLICE
STATION - JORHAT, PIN -785001, ASSAM.
2: AMRIT PRABHA DAS
WIFE OF SRI PRASANNA HAZARIKA PRESENT ADDRESS- ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
POST OFFICE - BISWANATH
DISTRICT - BISWANATH
PIN - 784176
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE P.P, ASSAM
2:AAPANJAN (NGO)
REGISTERED OFFICE NARSING AKRAH ROAD
RONGPUR
SILCHAR - 788009
DISTRICT - CACHAR
ASSAM. REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT
SRI RUPESH CHANDRA DAS SON OF SRI RAMLAL DAS NARSING AKRAH
ROAD
RONGPUR
SILCHAR - 788009
DISTRICT - CACHAR
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MR. V A CHOWDHURY,MR. D GAGAI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
17-12-2025
Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Gagai,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 528, read with Section 438 and
Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023 for setting aside and/or quashing of the criminal
proceeding in Complaint Case being C.R. Case No. 24/2018, pending in the
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar and also
prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 18.01.2020, passed by the
learned Addl. CJM, Cachar, Silchar in said complaint case, whereby cognizance
has been taken against the present petitioners including some others under
Section 406/409 read with Section 120(B) of the IPC.
3. Issue notice to the respondents.
4. As the respondent No.1 is represented by the learned Addl. PP, no formal
notice need be issued. However, petitioners shall serve requisite extra copy of
this petition to the learned Addl. PP, Assam during the course of the day.
5. Petitioners shall also take step for service of notice on the respondent No.2
by Speed post as well as through usual process within a period of 1(one) week
from today.
Page No.# 3/5
6. Registry shall call for the scanned copy of the TCR.
7. Heard on the interim prayer.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that after the disaster
in Cachar, Silchar, the list for compensation was prepared, wherein names of
700 persons was included as victims/beneficiaries. But it is the allegation in the
complaint that while preparing the list of victims/beneficiaries, 9 numbers of
names was incorporated who are not at all the victims of the said disaster and
thus, it is alleged that in the name of compensation to those 9 numbers of
persons, Rs.6,94,500/- has been misappropriated by the present petitioners in
connivance with other accused persons.
9. It is submitted by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that the list was
prepared by the Settlement Officer, wherein around 700 names were mentioned
and after getting a complaint from an NGO, the petitioner No.1, while he was
working an Additional Deputy Commissioner ordered for an enquiry for the said
anomalies and thereafter, an enquiry was made and accordingly, report was also
submitted by the Enquiry Officer. After getting the enquiry report, a letter was
issued to the Bank Manager for stoppage of payment and for freezing the Bank
Account for the alleged 9 numbers of persons and the said letter was issued by
the present petitioner No.1 on 04.01.2018 and the complaint was filed
subsequent to that i.e., on 17.01.2018.
10. Further Mr. Bora submitted that the petitioner No.2 is no way related with
the alleged offence and she was released by order dated 17.06.2016 enabling
her to join in her new place of posting, thus at the time of the alleged incident,
she was not in the office of Additional Deputy Commissioner at the time of the
disaster.
Page No.# 4/5
11. Mr. Bora, further raised the issue that from the order dated 18.01.2020 it
is seen that cognizance was taken against the present two petitioners including
some others, but from the order itself it is seen that at the time of taking
cognizance, there was no prosecution sanction and the cognizance was taken
only on the concept of deemed sanction as per the view of the Hon'ble Apex
Court passed in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64
12. He further submitted that it was an observation/suggestion from the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanian (supra), but subsequently
that has been clarified in the case of Suneeti Toteja Vs. State of U.P. and
Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 433, wherein in paragraphs 31 and 32
it has been observed as follows:-
"31. Similarly, learned counsel for the complainant had placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Subramanian Swamy to lend credence to the argument of
deemed sanction for prosecution. However, even the said judgment does not in any
manner lay down the notion of deemed sanction. First, the said judgment dealt
primarily with the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sanction for prosecution
under that Act. Secondly, G.S. Singhvi, J. while penning his separate but concurring
opinion in the said judgment, had given some guidelines for the consideration of the
Parliament, one of which is to the effect that at the end of the extended period of time
limit, if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the
proposal for prosecution, and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will
proceed to file the chargesheet/ complaint in the court to commence prosecution
within fifteen days of the expiry of the aforementioned time limit. However, such a
proposition has not yet been statutorily incorporated by the Parliament and in such a
scenario, this Court cannot read such a mandate into the statute when it does not
exist.
32. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was not right in taking
cognizance of the offence against the appellant herein without there being a sanction
for prosecution granted by the competent authority. ..........................."
13. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that
without proper prosecution sanction the cognizance has been taken against
Page No.# 5/5
these two petitioners. Accordingly, he submitted that till disposal of the present
petition, the further proceeding against these two petitioners may be stayed.
14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
submissions made by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel, the further proceeding
of the Complaint Case being C.R. Case No. 24/2018, pending in the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar against the
petitioner No.1, namely, Rajib Roy and petitioner No.2, namely, Amrit Prabha
Das and also the impugned order dated 18.01.2020, passed by the learned
Addl. CJM, Cachar, Silchar in said complaint case is hereby stayed, till the next
date of listing.
15. List this matter accordingly after the Bihu Vacation, on a date to be fixed
by the Registry.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
