SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 981

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH), (ITANAGAR BENCH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Michi Nibo, S/o. Michi Tallo – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of AP, Represented By Public Prosecutor, AP. & 4 Ors. – Respondents
Crl. Petn. No.3 Of 2021
Decided On : 22-08-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Khoda Tari.
.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Power of quashing – FIR – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Learned counsel Petitioner learned Additional P.P. appearing on behalf of State – Petitioner herein an Advocate by profession – Held, Court consideration investigation is at a very nascent stage and judicial interference at this stage would scuttle investigation – It would also be premature to pronounce conclusion based on hazy facts that FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law insofar as Petitioner is concerned at this stage – petition stands dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. K. Tari, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. L. Hage, the learned Additional P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

2. None appears for the Private Respondents.

3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ”the Code”) for quashing of the FIR dated 12/12/2019 registered vide Naharlagun P.S. Case No.201/2019 under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The Petitioner herein is an Advocate by profession. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had been wrongly implicated in the instant case inasmuch he was not involved in any manner with the transaction which took place between the Complainant and National Service Engineering Corporation as well as its proprietor Sri Hibu Nobin.

5. Taking into consideration that the law is well settled that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the Court is to look into the FIR as it stands without any addition or subtraction and to see as to whether any offence is made out. It is under such circumstances, that this Court takes into consideration the FIR in question.

6. The allegations made in the FIR is that in the month of September, 2018 a Memorandum of Understanding was entered between one Taniya Bulo, the Respondent No. 4 alongwith the Respondent No. 5, who happens to be the proprietor of National Service Engineering Corporation for installation of solar plant under the name of work as “Railway Crossing road side by side set small solar plant and railway plant and railway outer signal in the Upper Subansiri District” at the cost of Rs.4,51,50,000/-and in that regard an MOU was entered into for purchase of 301 numbers of solar plant at the cost of 1,50,000/-each. It was also alleged that for doing that work, the Respondent No. 4 was informed by the Respondent No. 5 that the Respondent No. 4 had to deposit an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs and in accordance therewith an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was deposited through cash which was accepted by the Respondent No. 5. Thereafter, it has been further alleged that after receiving the advance amount, the required solar plant was never delivered to the Respondent No. 4 for the said work. It has been also alleged that the Respondent No. 4 thereafter made detailed enquiries and came to learn that the firm namely M/S National Service Engineering Corporation is nothing but a fraud company having no record of work being executed and the so-called proprietor in connivance with Sri Michi Nibo, the petitioner herein happened to chose soft target like the Respondent No. 4 and lured them with an offer of huge money in return of investment in work which was not in existence. It was further mentioned in the said FIR that the Petitioner herein who claimed to be an Advocate of the said firm of the Respondent No. 5 is also a part and parcel of the kind of cheating and fraud. Further to that, it has been mentioned in the FIR that when the Respondent No. 4 came to learn after the enquiry, he asked the Respondent No. 5 to return him the money and the Respondent No. 5 informed the Respondent No. 4 through a Letter of Intimation dated 21/2/2019 asking the Respondent No. 4 to communicate with the Petitioner herein. It has been further alleged that the Respondent No. 4 approached the Petitioner, who assured the Petitioner that the money would be returned by March, 2019 and the Petitioner also took responsibility for refund of the money. Further to that, it has been alleged that when the Respondent No. 4 had again approached the Petitioner to remind him about the assurance, the Petitioner wrote an agreement stating to produce the Respondent No. 5 within the month of October, 2019. However, despite saying so the Petitioner started avoiding phone calls of the Respondent No. 4 and on the other hand threatened the Respondent No. 4 of filing FIR against him. It has been alleged that there is a big racket being operated by the Respondent No. 5 under the aid and a

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top