Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 20 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010166022024
2025:GAU-AS:15809
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1005/2024
MADHURJYA GOGOI
S/O SRI TULAN CH GOGOI
R/O VILL- AHUCHAUL GAON, WARD NO. 3, P.O. AND P.S. NORTH
LAKHIMPUR,
DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SRI BIPUL GOGOI
S/O LATE DIMBESWAR GOGOI
R/O LAKSHMIPUR
A BLOCK
P.O. AND P.S. GOGAMUKH
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN-78703
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J C GOGOI, MR. S ALI,MR B ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A IKBAL (R-2),MR. SK S N MOHAMMAD (R-
2),MR. S RAHMAN (R-2)
Page No.# 2/8
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Date of hearing & judgment : 20.11.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S
Rahman, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as well as Ms. S Bora, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking for
quashing of Charge-Sheet No. 174/2022 dated 31.08.2022 and Criminal
Proceeding vide PRC Case No. 702/2022 arising out of Dhemaji P.S Case No.
454/2021, under Section 420/406 of IPC, pending before the learned Add. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji, Assam.
3. The proceedings before the learned Court below has arisen out of an FIR
lodged by the respondent No. 2, which is reproduced below:-
"To
The Officer In-charge,
Dhemaji Police Station,
Sub: First Information Report.
Respected Sir/Madam,
Page No.# 3/8
With due regards to the subject cited above I would like to lodge
a complaint against Sri Madhurjya Gogoi, resident of Ahuchaul gaon,
Bagarighuli, P.O. & P.S.- Lakhimpur, Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam. I would also
like to state that I am a registered contractor and Sri Madhurjya Gogoi is
the proprietor of Dihang Engineering Pvt. Ltd. That for my contractual
work of Jal Jeevan Mission I came in contract with Sri Madhurjya Gogoi
as his business organization deals with supply of materials in connection
with my contractual job.
That, on date 05.02.2021 I made a payment of Rs. 81,000.00
(Rupees Eighty One Thousand) only, on 18.02.2021 Rs. 4,00,000.00
(Rupees Four Lakh) only, 12.04.2021 Rs. 2,00,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakh)
only, 29.06.2021 Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand) only, 14.07.2021
Rs. 2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand) only, 02.06.2021 Rs. 50,000.00
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only, 27.07.2021 Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rupees One
Lakh) only, 30.07.2021 Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakh) only
amounting total of Rs. 13,43,000.00 (Rupees Thirteen lakh Forty Three
Thousand) only through RTGS and bank account transfer and amount of
Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only in cash and Total amount of
Rs. 13,93,000.00 (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Ninety Three Thousand) only to
Sri Madhurjya Gogoi, A/C. No. 5020004704597, of HDFC bank for the
purpose of installation of 3 (0-2) Dhema)) 2 nos. of iron stand/scezing at
Simen Chapori and Moridhal (Rongpuria Gaon).
That, to my utter disappointment Sri Madhurjya Gogoi has not
supplied the material nor has he made any installation. I have tried to
Page No.# 4/8
contract Sri Madhurjya Gogoi on various occasions but he had avoided
me all instances.
That, Sri Madhurjya Gogoi have intentionally cheated me, breached
my trust and have fraudulently embezzled the whole amount of Rs.
13,93,000.00 (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Ninety Three Thousand) only.
That, due to such act of Sri Madhurjya Gogoi I am suffering from
great financial hardship and mental agony. And thus finding no other way
I approach before your Hon'ble Office finding solution of
misappropriation of my hard earn money and to registered a case
against Sri Madhurjya Goodi.
Thanking you, and hoping for a kind response.
Yours faithfully
(Bipul Gogoi)
Residence of Dihingia Borbam
P.O. Deori Borbam, P.S.- Gogamukh
Dist.- Demaji, Assam"
4. Pursuant to the lodging of the aforesaid FIR, Dhemaji P.S Case No.
454/2021 under Section 420/406 IPC was registered and investigation
commenced culminating in filing of the charge-sheet against the present
petitioner. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence in the Section
420 IPC, and proceedings commenced. At present, the case is at the stage of
evidence.
Page No.# 5/8
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is apparent from the
FIR itself that the dispute is purely of a civil nature. Furthermore, the learned
counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents annexed to the
instant revision as Annexure - 9 Series to show that the payments have been
made to Dihang Engineering Pvt. Ltd., and not in the private account of the
present petitioner. Yet, in the charge-sheet, Dihang Engineering Pvt. Ltd. has
not been made a party/accused. It is the further submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the complaint regarding non-supply of the
materials is baseless, as the petitioner has supplied the materials which were
contracted for.
6. In support of his aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalit Chatuverdi
& Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 190 , wherein it
has been held as follows:-
"5. This Court, in a number of judgments, has pointed out the clear
distinction between a civil wrong in the form of breach of contract, non-
payment of money or disregard to and violation of the contractual terms;
and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. Repeated
judgments of this Court, however, are somehow overlooked, and are not
being applied and enforced. We will be referring to these judgments. The
impugned judgment dismisses the application filed by the appellants
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground of delay/laches and also
the factum that the chargesheet had been filed on 12.12.2019. This
ground and reason is also not valid.
Page No.# 6/8
6. In "Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another",
(2009) 8 SCC 751, this Court had referred to Section 420 of the IPC, to
observe that in order to constitute an offence under the said section, the
following ingredients are to be satisfied: -
"18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence
of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of
"cheating" are as follows:
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or
misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by
any other act or omission;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either
deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by
any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived
to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived; and
(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage
or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
19. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not
only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the
accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
Page No.# 7/8
(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security
(or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security)."
7. Similar elucidation by this Court in "V.Y. Jose and Another v. State of
Gujarat and Another", (2009) 3 SCC 78, explicitly states that a contractual
dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of a
criminal proceeding. The ingredient of 'cheating', as defined under Section
415 of the IPC, is existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of
making initial promise or representation thereof, from the very beginning
of the formation of contract. Further, in the absence of the averments
made in the complaint petition wherefrom the ingredients of the offence
can be found out, the High Court should not hesitate to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
saves the inherent power of the High Court, as it serves a salutary
purpose viz. a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a
number of years, when no criminal offence is made out. It is one thing to
say that a case has been made out for trial and criminal proceedings
should not be quashed, but another thing to say that a person must
undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has been made
out in the complaint. This Court in V.Y.Jose (supra) placed reliance on
several earlier decisions in "Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI" (2003) 5
SCC 257, "Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.", (2006) 6 SCC 736,
"Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal" (2007) 7 SCC 373 and "All
Cargo Movers (I) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain" (2007) 14 SCC 776."
Page No.# 8/8
7. Learned counsel representing the respondents has submitted that the
petitioner is a habitual offender and that other cases of similar nature, including
under the Negotiable Instruments Acts, are pending against the petitioner.
However, in the view of this Court, even if the contention of the learned counsel
for respondent No. 2 is taken to be correct, the said cases, being similar in
nature, are also regarded as a cases of civil nature.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid decisions and considering the facts of the
present case in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred
to above, I am of the view that the instant proceedings pending before the
learned Court below amount to an abuse of the process of law, and therefore,
its continuance cannot be permitted.
9. Accordingly, the abovementioned proceedings in PRC Case No. 702/2022
arising out of Dhmaji P.S Case No. 454/2021, pending before the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji below are hereby quashed.
10. The petition stands allowed accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
