Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 8798 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 24 November, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010195772023




                                                                 2025:GAU-AS:16029

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

                              Case No. : Crl.Pet./930/2023

            MINU SUBBA
            D/O LATE MONI KUMAR SUBBA
            W/O MR. KAUSHAL SILWAL
            PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 118 SUBBA FARM HOUSE,
            MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD, NEW DELHI.
            ANOTHER ADDRESS
            B346A, SUSHANT LOK 1,
            HARYANA-122001, SECTOR-28.


            VERSUS

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

            2:MRS. JYOTI SUBBA
            W/O LATE MONI KUMAR SUBBA
            C/O HOUSE NO. 18
             SUBBA FARM HOUSE
             NEW MANGLA PURI
             MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD
             SOUTH DELHI-11003

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S K SINGH, MR B PUSHILAL

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S UPADHAY(R-2),MR. B CHAKRAVARTY (R-

2),MR. P SARMAH (R-2) Page No.# 2/10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

Date of Hearing : 11.11.2025

Date of Judgment : 24.11.2025

JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Singh, learned for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. for the State and Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. preferred for quashing the FIR lodged with Tezpur Police Station and Registered as Tezpur P.S. case No. 207/2023 (Corresponding to G.R. case No. 255/2023) under Sections 419/420/468 of IPC.

3. The case of the petitioner may be briefly stated. One Smti. Jyoti Subba (Respondent No. 2), W/o- Late Moni Kumar Subba, lodged a FIR stating, inter alia, that a few months ago it had come to the knowledge of the informant/Respondent No. 2 that one Minu Subba has obtained a Birth Certificate from Tezpur Municipal Board vide Registration No. 1679 dated 23/07/1988, wherein the name of father is shown as Mr. Moni Kumar Subba and name of mother is shown as Ms. Jyoti Subba (the informant/Respondent No.2). Further, the date of birth of Minu Subba is shown as 16/02/1988. The informant/Respondent No. 2 also mentioned that she has no daughter in the name of Minu Subba. The informant/Respondent No. 2 also alleges in the FIR that she married Moni Kumar Subba (since deceased) in the year 1991, and hence the said Birth Certificate is a false one which, she claims, to have been Page No.# 3/10

obtained by Ms Minu Subba by submitting forged documents before the authority concerned. The informant also claims in the FIR that her husband was a former Member of Parliament from Tezpur Lok Sabha constituency and a renowned person, so this petitioner has illegally and unlawfully used their names with a view to cheating people and to make wrongful gain. The informant/Respondent No. 2 claims to have made attempts to contact the Tezpur Municipal Board but failed to get the desired response from their end, and as such she approached the police with a request to investigate the matter and to take necessary action against the accused/petitioner.

4. After receiving the said FIR, the Officer in Charge of Tezpur Police Station registered a case vide Tezpur PS Case No. 207/2023 corresponding to GR Case No. 255/23 u/s 419/420/468 of IPC and started the investigation.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant lodged the FIR on the basis of some imaginary false, baseless allegations with a view to harassing this petitioner. Her date of birth mentioned in the FIR is 16/02/1988, whereas the true fact is that the date of birth of the petitioner is 11/02/1988 and the same is mentioned in the birth certificate and not 16/02/1988.

6. It is stated that the petitioner is the daughter of Late Moni Kumar Subba and the Respondent No. 2. In all her relevant documents such as Adhaar, Passport, PAN, Voter etc. her father's name has been recorded as Late Moni Kumar Subba and mother's name has been recorded as Mrs. Jyoti Subba. She has always known the Respondent No. 2 as her mother. Now, after so many years, the Respondent No. 2 has come out with a FIR with false pleas in order to harass her. She appears to be not happy with her and in order to give her a Page No.# 4/10

lesson, she has resorted to the lodging of this FIR. Being a minor, she could not have been the applicant for the issuance of the said birth certificate. It was surely Late Moni Kumar Subba and the Respondent No. 2 who filed the application for the registration of the birth and issuance of the birth certificate. Furthermore, she got admitted to school as child of Late Moni Kumar Subba and the Respondent No. 2 as well. She completed her education and obtained other documents too. The petitioner has completed her schooling from Mussoorie International School, Mussoorie in the year 2006. After so many years of issuance of the Birth certificate and after having the same recorded or taken aid in the issuance of other credentials of hers such Adhaar, Passport and other documents, she cannot be faulted for the same.

7. The father of the petitioner, namely, Late Moni Kumar Subba, served as a Member of Parliament (House of the People) three consecutive terms. He represented the Tezpur Constituency (9) of Assam. The petitioner's name and details were also included in her father's affidavit which was filed along with the nomination paper at the time of election.

8. The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the correctness of the documents produced by the petitioner to establish that she is the daughter of the respondent No.2 and her husband, Late Moni Kumar Subba. Further, the respondent No.2 by filing an additional affidavit has sought to bring to the notice of the Court that the police had sought verification of the birth certificate in question from the Joint director of Health Services Tezpur who vide communication dated 10.05.2023 informed that the birth certificate as per Registration No. 1679 is registered in the name of one Sri Alakesh Das Ray, Rubber Bagan Tezpur. A copy of the said communication has also been annexed to the additional affidavit.

Page No.# 5/10

9. I have heard Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chakravarty learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and also heard learned Addl. P.P Mr. R.J. Baruah.

10. At the outset, it is to be clarified that this Court is not called upon to decide on the parentage of the petitioner i.e. whether the petitioner is the daughter of the respondent No.2 and Late Moni Kumar Subba.

11. In the course of deciding whether the investigation is to be allowed to be continued, what is required to be determined, in the facts of the present case, is whether the petitioner could have had any role in obtaining the birth certificate in question.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in course of his arguments has relied amongst others on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salib alias Shalu @ Salim vs. State of U.P. and othrs . reported in AIR OnLine 2023 SC 617 wherein at para 26 it has been held as follows:-

"26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, Page No.# 6/10

it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."

13. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel that the present FIR has been lodged by the respondent No.2 out of anguish given the fact that the petitioner herself had, misguidedly lodged an FIR at Delhi against the respondent No.2 making certain allegations which would have admittedly caused much hurt to the respondent No.2. Therefore, from the surrounding circumstances it is evident that the lodging of the FIR was actuated by malice and vengefulness.

14. With regard to the communication dated 10.05.2023 issued by the Joint Director of Health Services Tezpur, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the birth certificate itself has been issued by the Tezpur Municipal Board by virtue of delegated authority granted to it by the Govt. of Assam under the provisions of the Registration of Births And Deaths Act, more specifically Section 27 thereof, which provideds as follows:-

Page No.# 7/10

"27. Delegation of powers-The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act (except the power to make rules under section 30) or the rules made thereunder shall, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction be exercisable also by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the direction."

15. It is submitted that a perusal of the said communication itself reveals that the Joint Director of Health Services and Additional District Register Birth And Death himself stated that since the birth certificate was issued from the Tezpur Municipal Board without any concern to the undersigned i.e., said Joint Director, no relevant record is available in the office of the Joint director of Health Services, Sonitpur. The learned counsel explained that different authorities issuing birth certificates to different people could have the same registration number, in this case the registration No. 1679 and naturally the names of the persons against the same serial number would be different as different authorities have issued certificate to different people under the same serial number maintained in their own registers which have no inter connectivity. Therefore the communication of the Joint Director are of no relevance with regard to the present birth certificate in question.

16. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that even assuming that the contention of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner is not her daughter is true, for the sake of argument, it is inconceivable that the petitioner who was around 13 years old at the time of the issuance of the birth certificate in the year 2001 could have had any role in obtaining the same. That would have been the duty of her parents or either of them. Therefore, no blame can be attributed to the present petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Page No.# 8/10

law is clear on the point that if the allegations made in the FIR make out a prima facie case then the High Court will not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR. In this regard learned counsel has placed reliance on Rajesh Bajaj Vs State NCT of Delhi and Othrs reported in 1999 (3) SCC 259 as well as Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharastra and Othrs reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down several parameters on the issue as to whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or no coercive steps to be adopted during the pendency of the quashing petition and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no cohesive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed while deciding a petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C/ Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. In the instant case, the Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not required to decide upon the genuineness and otherwise of the various documents annexed to the petition concerning the paternity or maternity of the present petitioner. What has to be considered is the fact that the date of birth as mentioned in the birth certificate issued by the Tezpur Municipal Board is 11.02.1998 which date of birth has not been disputed by the respondent No.2 in their affidavit-in-opposition or additional affidavit. Furthermore, the pass certificate of the petitioner issued by ICSE pertaining to the 12th standard was issued in the year 2006 and that would put the age of the petitioner at around 18 years considering the date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate and therefore there is no mismatch between the age and the standard/ class she was studying in at the relevant point of time. Therefore, this Page No.# 9/10

Court has to hold that there is no dispute with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in the birth certificate issued by the Tezpur Municipal Board i.e. 11.02.1988. The said certificate having been issued in the year 2001, it would put the age of the petitioner at around 13 years, at the time of issuance if the certificate, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. It would be reasonable therefore to hold that an 13 year old girl would not be capable of obtaining a birth certificate from the Tezpur Municipal Board at such a tender age.

19. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salib (supra) it is not enough for the Court to look only into the averments made in the FIR, but the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the records of the case over and above the averments with due circumspection and try to read between the lines specially when the elements of vengeance are present as in the instant case.

20. As far as the birth certificate in question is concerned, the possibility that the same may have been obtained by resort to fraud cannot be ruled out. But in view of the age of the petitioner at the time of its issuance, I am of the considered view that no case can be said to have been made out as against the present petitioner.

21. In view of the above discussions, the investigation as against the present petitioner Minu Subba is hereby quashed. However, it is clarified that the police may continue with the investigation of the case as against any other person.

22. The criminal petition stands allowed.

JUDGE Page No.# 10/10

Comparing Assistant