Page No.# 1/12 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 787 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/12 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 3 June, 2025

                                                                           Page No.# 1/12

GAHC010255342022




                                                                      2025:GAU-AS:7165

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

                               Case No. : Crl.Pet./1269/2022

            KRISHNA DEY
            S/O PRONOY DEY
            PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- BARABASTI, PUB DHANI PATHER, P.O.
            TELIBASTI, P.S. HOJAI, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782435



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
            REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:MORTUZ ALI
             S/O AYNAL HOQUE
            R/ O VILL- KARBALA
            (RAHMATPUR)
             P.O. AND P.S. GOALPARA
             DIST. GOALPARA
             ASSAM
             PIN-783101

            3:FARHANA YASMIN AHMED
            W/O SHAHID HUSSAIN

            R/O ABHAYAPURI TOWN
            P.O. AND P.S. ABHAYAPURI TOWN
            DIST. BONGAIGAON
            PIN CODE- 78338

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S KALITA, MR. S KAKATI,MR P DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR R ISLAM (R-2,3),MS. A HUSSAIN (R-2,3),N

CHAKRABARTY (R-2,3) Page No.# 2/12

:::BEFORE:::

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

Date of hearing : 24.03.2025 Date of Judgment & Order : 03.06.2025

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR lodged by the informant/respondent No. 2, which is registered under Goalpara Police Station under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1088/2021 along with Charge-Sheet No. 232/2021 dated 30.11.2021 and also prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief is that, he is a businessman by profession who deals with bulk supply of locally made brooms to different parts of the State of Assam. However, to his utter surprise, he had found that on 22.05.2021, an FIR was lodged by the informant/respondent No. 2, stating Page No.# 3/12

inter-alia, that he had a joint family business under the name and style of "Farjana Enterprise" dealing with broomsticks (Jharu). On 09.04.2021, one Shri Sanjib Saha, son of late Nani Gopal Saha, contacted the petitioner for bulk supply of broomsticks from Dengaon in the district of Karbi Anglong, Assam, to Goalpara. After negotiating the price with the petitioner for the supply of broomsticks, Sanjib Saha informed respondent No. 2 about the arrangements. Thereafter, on 09.04.2021, the informant/ respondent No. 2 gave a 12-wheeler truck on rent and sent it to Dengaon to bring the broomsticks as per the contract with the present petitioner. On 10.04.2021, the broomsticks were loaded on the said truck, and necessary transit documents, including the transit passed etc., were handed over to the informant /respondent No. 2 upon payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) through his mobile internet banking system into the petitioner's bank account maintained at Axis Bank, Goalpara. It is further alleged that after payment of the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs), the petitioner immediately fled away from the scene keeping his mobile phone in switched-off mode. Consequently, the informant/ respondent No. 2 had to unload the said truck, as he could not contact with the accused/petitioner. Thereafter, he lodged the FIR at Goalpara Police Station, which was registered as Goalpara P.S. Case No. 316/2021 under Sections 420/406 of IPC.

4. It is submitted that, in actual fact, the case is that, one Farhana Yasmin Ahmed wife of Sahid Hussain from Goalpara who is also arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the instant petition, had entered into a verbal contract with the present petitioner for purchase of the broomsticks weighing about 15 tons for consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs). Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 sent a 12-wheeler truck bearing registration No. WB 11B 8433 Page No.# 4/12

to Dengaon in Karbi Anglong and accordingly, the articles were also loaded on the truck on 10.04.2021. After loading the truck, the respondent No.3 paid Rs. 11,10,001/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs ten thousand one) into the petitioner's bank account at Axis Bank, Hojai branch, and promised to pay the remaining amount upon reaching the destination in Goalpara. It is further stated by the petitioner that he collected the broomsticks from the local villagers and obtained the requisite transit pass for carrying the broomsticks, which was issued by the forest officials of the Karbi Anglong East Division, Diphu.

5. It is also further stated by the petitioner that the truck carrying the articles reached Goalpara on 12.04.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded payment of the remaining balance amount of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One lakh ninety thousand) out of the total agreed amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs). However, the respondent No. 3, with an intent to cheat and deceive the petitioner, lodged a complaint with Axis Bank at Goalpara, instructing them not to make any payments, claiming that Rs. 11,10,001/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs ten thousand one) had been wrongly transferred to the petitioner's account. Later, the respondent No. 2, in collusion with the respondent No. 3, lodged an FIR at Goalpara Police Station only to harass and to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. When the petitioner found that the respondent No. 3 had cheated and caused wrongful loss to him, he also lodged an FIR at Dokmoka Police Station at Karbi Anglong on 25.06.2021, which is accordingly received and registered as Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 28/2021 under Sections 406/420/34 IPC, and the investigation is still pending. Subsequently, the petitioner's bank account was blocked and frozen as per the instructions given by the Goalpara Police Station in reference to Goalpara P.S. Case No. 316/2021 dated 22.05.2021, which was subsequently communicated to the petitioner on Page No.# 5/12

08.06.2021.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case on 26.11.2021 and also forwarded to judicial custody. While the petitioner was languishing in the jail hajot, the respondent No. 2 filed a petition along with an affidavit stating that the matter has already been compromised and settled and hence, he has no objection, if the accused/petitioner is released on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the learned Court below. But, in spite of amicable settlement between the parties, the charge-sheet is filed in case of Goalpara P.S. Case No. 316/2021 on 30.11.2021 vide Charge-Sheet No. 232/2021, which is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara for disposal.

7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR and the Charge-Sheet were filed by the police without any basis, and only to harass the petitioner with a mala fide intention to cause wrongful loss. Moreso, the Goalpara Police Station has no territorial jurisdiction at all to register the case, as the incident alleged to have taken place at Dengaon in Karbi Anglong District. During the investigation, the police failed to seize the truck and relevant documents, nor recorded the statement of the driver for the interest of the fair investigation. Consequently, the charge-sheet was filed without proper investigation to that effect.

8. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submits that no case is made out under Sections 406/420 of IPC against the present petitioner. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was not entrusted with any movable property belonging to the informant to establish a case under Section 406 of IPC. Moreover, there are no ingredients to attract Section 420 of IPC. And as per Page No.# 6/12

the informant, he deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) into the accused/ petitioner's bank account, which remains blocked.

9. It is further submitted that the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet do not bear any ingredients to attract Sections 420/406 of IPC and there is no cogent materials in the charge-sheet regarding the alleged commission of offences by the accused/petitioner and as such, the FIR, the charge-sheet and the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara is liable to be set aside and quash. Further, he submitted that, if the proceeding is allowed to be continued, it would result in abuse of process of the Court.

10. That apart, the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties, and hence, there is no possibility of conviction, even if the proceeding is allowed to be continued. Moreover, the dispute is only on the basis of contract, which is purely a civil dispute and only to harass the present petitioner, an FIR has been lodged, by giving a criminal colour to a civil dispute.

11. He further submitted that the respondent No. 2 himself filed an affidavit along with the bail application stating that he has no objection in granting bail to the petitioner, as the matter has already been settled/compromised.

12. Accordingly, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that this is a fit case wherein the FIR, charge-sheet as well as the criminal proceeding can be set aside and quashed by invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

13. Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submitted in this regard that pursuant to contract agreement, he paid Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) into the petitioner's bank account. However, Page No.# 7/12

after the transfer of money, the petitioner fled the site and kept his mobile phone in switched-off mode. Thereafter, when the driver attempted to move the truck from the godown, the actual owner of godown stopped and unloaded the truck, sending back the empty truck. He further submitted that upon receiving information from his driver, he tried to contact the petitioner multiple times but he could not contact him, as the petitioner's mobile phone remained in switched-off mode.

14. It is further stated that the respondent No. 2 also tried to contact the petitioner thereafter, but the petitioner neither met the respondent No. 2 nor refunded money already paid. Thus, the petitioner allegedly cheated respondent No. 2 and hence, finding no other alternative, he filed an application with the concerned bank to freeze the petitioner's bank account and, ultimately having no other option, lodged the FIR. Furthermore, it is submitted that the respondent subsequently came to know that godown in question actually belonged to another person, not the petitioner. Though, he claims himself to be the owner of the godown only with a view to cheat the present respondent and to misappropriate the money of the respondent.

15. Mr. Islam further submitted that the petitioner's statement claiming the truck loaded with broomsticks reached Goalpara on 12.04.2021 is false and fabricated. And the fact is that, the empty truck had reached Goalpara after unloading of the broomsticks. He also submitted that the FIR lodged by the petitioner, initially registered as Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 28/2021, is transferred to the Goalpara Police Station as the cause of action arose in Goalpara and the said case is renumbered as Goalpara P.S. Case No. 550/2021. Upon completing the investigation into the case lodged by the petitioner, the police submitted a Final Report being F.R. No. 90/2022 dated 30.04.2022, stating that no Page No.# 8/12

incriminating material was found against the present respondent.

16. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that after the petitioner's bail application was rejected, a relative of the petitioner contacted the respondent, stating that the petitioner is ready to return the entire amount to the respondent. At the request made by the relative of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 visited the Goalpara Jail and had talked with the petitioner, who assured him that after coming out from the Jail, he would return back the entire amount to the respondent. On the basis of the said assurance given by the petitioner, the respondent filed an application before the learned Court below stating that the matter has already been compromised and he has no objection, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. But surprisingly, after his release from jail, the petitioner fled and failed to contact the respondent and thereby cheating him once again. Subsequently, the present petitioner filed the present application for quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet lodged by the respondent with some false concocted story.

17. He further submitted that the allegations in the FIR prima facie establish a case against the present petitioner under Sections 420/406 of IPC, disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence. Consequently, a charge-sheet was also filed against the present petitioner finding a prima facie case against him. Accordingly, Mr. Islam submitted that it is not at all a fit case for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet and the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner.

18. Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, submitted that the charge-sheet against the present petitioner was filed after a prima facie case was established during the investigation. Furthermore, from the statement made in the FIR, it is also seen that there are Page No.# 9/12

sufficient materials to prima facie establish a case under Sections 420/406 of IPC against the present petitioner. Accordingly, Mr. Baruah, learned counsel submitted that this is not at all a fit case for quashing the criminal proceeding pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the FIR and the charge-sheet by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

19. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition.

20. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the respondent had a contract of providing broomsticks to the respondent by the petitioner and it is also admitted that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) was credited to the petitioner's bank account, which was later blocked/frozen by the bank authorities pursuant to an application by the respondent No. 2 as well as the request made by the Investigating Officer during the investigation.

21. It is the case of the petitioner that, out of fixed amount of 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs) for the broomsticks, the respondent had paid Rs. 11,10,001/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs ten thousand one). The truck had reached its destination in Goalpara, and the broomsticks were unloaded accordingly. However, despite repeated requests, the respondent failed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- (Rupees One lakh ninety thousand). Instead, the respondent lodged an FIR against the petitioner with some false and concocted story.

22. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that, after depositing an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) into the petitioner's bank Page No.# 10/12

account, the owner of godown refused to allow the truck to move towards the place of destination and meanwhile, the petitioner also fled away from the place of scene and switched-off his mobile phone for which, the respondent also could not contact him and ultimately, the truck was unloaded and the empty truck reached its destination. Thereafter, the respondent lodged the FIR.

23. It is also claimed by the petitioner that the matter was amicably settled between the parties and pursuant to said settlement, the respondent also filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, as the matter has already been settled. The petitioner also claims that in spite of the said settled agreement, the charge-sheet was filed. But explaining the situation, it is stated by the respondent that at the request made by the relative of the petitioner, he even visited the jail premises and made a contract with the petitioner, where he assured him to return back the entire amount. Thereafter, on good faith, an affidavit was filed by the respondent stating about the settlement between the parties. But after release from jail, the respondent was unable to meet with the petitioner, and the petitioner failed to return the money that had been deposited into his bank account.

24. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident from the FIR's contents as well as the circumstances as described by the respondent that a prima facie case is found to be established against the petitioner under Sections 420/406 of IPC and the charge-sheet is also accordingly filed by the Investigating Officer, finding a prima facie case. More so, it is also not the case that there was settlement of compromise between the parties and the respondent filed an affidavit only on the assurance gave by the petitioner that he would return the money upon his release from jail.

Page No.# 11/12

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has held 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 channelized 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 Page No.# 12/12

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."

26. But, herein in the instant case, it is seen that there is a prima facie case found to be established even from the plain reading of the FIR and more so, the Investigating Officer has already filed a charge-sheet against the present petitioner after finding a prima facie case against him. It is also seen from the objection raised by the respondents that the FIR lodged by the petitioner also ended into F.R, as during investigation no sufficient evidence was found against the respondent to file a charge-sheet against the respondent.

27. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that, this is not a fit case for quashing the FIR dated 22.05.2021, the charge-sheet dated 30.11.2021, and the criminal proceeding pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

28. With the above observation, the present criminal petition stands dismissed and disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant