Md Haidor Ali vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 11 February, 2026

                                                                 Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010209562025




                                                          undefined

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

                          Case No. : Crl.Pet./1162/2025

          MD HAIDOR ALI
          S/O LT. RAYAB ALI
          R/O LAHDIGORH CHARIALI
          P.O. AND P.S. TEOK, LAHDIGORH
          DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM,
          MOBILE NO.785433678



          VERSUS

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

          2:SMT. MINA KUMARI DEODHANI
          W/O MD. HAIDOR ALI
          R/O LADOIGARH CHARIALI
           P.S. TEOK
           P.O. LAHDOIGARH

          DIST. JORHAT
          ASSAM

          3:SMT. JYOTISHMA PHUKAN
           D/O MD. HAIDOR ALI
          R/O LADOIGARH CHARIALI
           P.S. TEOK
           P.O. LAHDOIGARH

          DIST. JORHAT
          ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. P. Kataki
                                                                     Page No.# 2/7

Advocate for the respondents: Mr. S. Das, Amicus Curiae

Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. P.P.

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

Date on which judgment is reserved: 07.02.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment: 11.02.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment?: No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced: Yes JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional P.P. also and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Revision No. 16/2025 allowing the revision application and setting aside the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the JMFC, Jorhat in PRC Case No. 489/2024 directing further investigation.

3. The present petitioner had lodged a complaint before the CJM, Jorhat, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jorhat, who by order dated 08.07.2024 directed the Officer-In- Charge of Tiok police station to register the case and investigate the same and Page No.# 3/7

accordingly the same was registered as Tiok P.S. Case No. 73/2024 under sections 294/420/463/506 IPC.

4. The brief facts of the case as alleged in the complaint is that the petitioner while checking some of his relevant documents in his home; he was astonished to notice a copy of the respondent no. 2's Admit card of Board of Secondary Education Assam, where the name of the petitioner was mentioned as Haidor Ali Phukan. The petitioner was completed stunned to see the said developments as he always worked outside of Jorhat during the course if his job and never produced any document which suggest his name as Haidor Ali Phukan. The petitioner name is Md. Haidor Ali and he never wrote his surname as "PHUKON". In all of his relevant documents i.e; Elector photo Identity Card ; Aadhar Card ; PAN his name is correctly mentioned as HaidorAli. The accused no. 1 and 2 taking advantage of his absence, deliberately forged his identity proof and manipulated the documents and intentionally made wrong entry with such forged documents /identity proof with the school authority to obtain the ADMIT CARD with the said false name. Such deliberate manipulation of identity proof of the complainant was done with a sinister design to grab the petitioner's property in future and to make some further illegal gain in future. The respondents have deliberately made wrong entry in the Birth Certificate which also includes the name of the petitioner as 'PHUKON. The date and place of birth of the respondent no. 2 was falsely mentioned as Lahdoigarh, Chariali whereas the respondent no.2 was born on 10.10.1994 at Wintrobe Hospital, Ambari, Guwahati. The respondent no. 1 deliberately made a false entry in the official record of death and birth registration authority at Kakajan, Jorhat to obtain such a false birth certificate. The petitioner was completely unaware about such developments as he was living outside of Jorhat during the course of Page No.# 4/7

his job and only after retirement he came to reside in his permanent residence at Lahdoigarh Chariali, Jorhat. That the petitioner was devastated by such forgery and was compelled to go to Teok Jyoti Vidyapeeth, Jorhat from where the respondent no. 2 had passed her HSLC Examination. The school authority told the petitioner that they had issued the Admit Card in favour of respondent no. 2 only on the basis of of documents which were submitted by respondent no.1 in collusion with the respondent no. 2. The admit card was issued only on basis of documents which were deliberately forged and manipulated with wrong name of the complainant. The birth certificate of the respondent no.2 also contains false date of birth and place of birth of the accused and also made wilful wrong entry of the petitioner's name.

5. The I.O. submitted the charge-sheet under Section 294/506 as no evidence could be collected with regard to Section 420/465 IPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted an application before the learned JMFC.

6. The said application was preferred on 10.01.2025. After hearing both the parties the Ld. JMFC vide order dated 14.05.2025 had come to a finding that from the case diary it appears that the Investigation Officer has recorded the statement of four witnesses u/s 180 of the BNSS. The statements of the concerned Registrar of Birth and Death under Kakojan P.H.E and the Principal of Jyoti Vidyapith were not recorded. The document which were mentioned is the list of documents were never verified or seized by the investigating officer So, accordingly the Ld. Court below directed the Officer in Charge of the Teok P.S to conduct the further investigation.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 14.05.2025 the respondent no. 2 and 3 preferred revision application before the learned Sessions judge, Jorhat and the same was transferred to the learned Additional Page No.# 5/7

Sessions Judge, Jorhat and has been registered as Criminal Revision no. 16/2025. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 28.08.2025 set aside the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the JMFC in PRC Case No. 489/2024 and according to the Revisional Court, the petitioner knew about the changing of his name from Haidor Ali to Haidor Ali Phukon since the beginning of 2015 and he slept over the matter till June 2024. The delay has not been explained and therefore the conduct of the petitioner is not fair, therefore, it is not a case for conducting further investigation and accordingly revision was allowed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the instant petition has been preferred.

8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Revisional Court passed the impugned order without considering the nature of the alleged forgery that took place as mentioned in the FIR and only considered the defence case that there had been a delay in lodging of the FIR which by itself cannot be a ground for setting aside the order of further investigation and the relevant factors which necessitated further investigation were never looked into by the Revisional Court and therefore, there has been an abuse of power by the Revisional Court which therefore, requires interference of this Court.

9. Before the Revisional Court the revisionist/respondent No. 2 herein had inter alia taken the following ground:-

"c) For that however the O.P. Haidor All fled a T.S. case being T.S. 07/2015 before the Ld. Munsiff No. 1 Jorhat (Civil Judge Junior Division-

1) Jorhat seeking divorce from the petitioner No. I (accused No. 1 in PRC 489/24) in the year 2015 in which it is inter alia alleged in the plaint, evidence in chief by the Complainant/O.P. that his name has been changed from Haidor Ali to Haidor Ali Phukan in the HSLC Admit Card and registration Card of the petitioner No. 2 (Accused No. 2 in PRC 489/24). Hence the OP has been well versed with the facts (alleged Page No.# 6/7

forgery), since 2015 and he has not raised any objection against it till June 2024, that is why he has not mentioned the specific date or time of alleged offences in the FIR or complaint petition in order to avoid inordinate unexplained delay of almost 10 (ten) years."

10. The learned Revisional Court accepted the aforesaid contention and held that it does not appear to be fair to allow further investigation considering the delay in lodging the FIR without any explanation for such inordinate delay.

11. The challenge was made to the order of the learned Magistrate directing further investigation and it was not a case of quashing of the FIR on the ground of delay. In any case the question of delay and as to whether it has been sufficiently explained or not is a matter to be decided at the trial and therefore, it appears that the Revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the impugned order on the said ground.

12. The alleged delay in lodging of the complaint is a distinct and separate matter and has no connection with the grounds on which the further investigation has been directed by the learned Magistrate. If the grounds on which such further investigation was directed were found to be untenable then it was certainly within the remit of the Revisional Court to interfere, but the Revisional Court appears to have misdirected itself by taking up and according the contention of the revisionist regarding delay in lodging of the FIR.

13. Delay in lodging of the complaint/FIR may not in all cases lead the Court to disbelieve the prosecution story and it is for this reason that this matter is to be left to be determined by the trial Court at the end of the trial when all the evidence has been brought in.

14. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Revision No.16/2025 is hereby set aside.

Page No.# 7/7

15. The petition stands allowed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant