IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Dr. Md. Lokman Ali, S/o Md. Sayed Ali – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr. – Respondents
Crl.Pet.438 of 2020
Decided on : 15-05-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 300 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120(B), 468, 471, 420, 409, 201, 506, 300 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(2), 226 - Appointed persons in illegal manner - Forged Ph.D Certificate - Quash FIR - Petition praying for quashing of FIR – Held, There is no order on conviction or acquittal has been pass by any competent authority in regards to procuring fake or forged Ph.D. Certificate, though, one independent investigation was done by CID - Cognizable offences is already been made out in case and investigation is still under process - Present FIR has been lodged due to some personal grudge and enmity cannot be considered at this stage for quashing entire criminal proceeding as well as FIR in connection with case - Allegation made in FIR constituted a cognizance offence - Case is still under investigation, thus, it cannot be held that certificate produced by petitioner was genuine or FIR filed by informant/respondent No.2 with mala-fide intention – Court is of considered opinion that this is not a fit case, where, extra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash criminal proceeding - Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent and Mr. G. Bokalial, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of the FIR dated 28.04.2020 lodged by the opposite party No.2 and CID P.S. Case No.08/2020, registered under Sections 120(B)/468/471 of the IPC.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition is that;
3.1. The petitioner is working as the Assistant Professor in the Department of History at Barkhetri College. His post was provincialised on 12.09.2016 w.e.f 01.01.2013. The petitioner was also an Ex. Principal of the said College, who hold the post of In-Charge of the Principal w.e.f. 15.10.2001 to 07-12-2007 and again from 31.12.2010 to 18.12.2011. Due to some dispute, the claim on the post of the Principal of the present petitioner is sub-judice before this Court.
3.2. One Sk. Mubaraque Hussain lodged a complaint against the present petitioner before the Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell, Assam (In short C.M’s SVC). On the basis of the said complaint, the official of Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell, asked the present petitioner to appear before the office and accordingly, the present petitioner appeared on 26.02.2019 on the said office.
3.3. On the basis of the FIR, the allegations leveled against the present petitioner are as follows:-
(ii). The petitioner appointed one Dilip Ch. Haloi by forging the signature of the respondent No.3.
(iii). The petitioner by manufacturing the signature of one Prafulla Ch. Medhi prepared one report for selection committee for his appointment as Principal of Barkhetri college as well as an appointment letter dated 16.11.2003 in his favour.
(iv). The petitioner appointed two persons namely Joynab khatun and Ayub Ali on 28.12.2006 and 01.12.2007 in a most illegal manner without observing any formalities for extraneous consideration whereas his position as In-charge Principal of Barkhetri College has been set aside/quashed by this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 08.09.2005, i.e. prior to those two appointment.
(v). The petitioner while supposed to have been serving in Barkhetri College from 06.08.2008 to 31.12.2010 serving as Principal of Dakshin Guwahati Jr. College and draw salary for Rs.1,47,549 from the said College.
(vi). On the day of re-joining at Barkhetri College 31.12.2010 after giving resignation from Dakshin Guwahati Jr. College on the same day, the petitioner issued two appointment letters in favour of Md. Mofidul Islam and Khalilur Rahman on 31.12.2010 in a most arbitrary and illegal manner for huge extraneous consideration.
(vii). The petitioner manufactured a selection process for Grade-IV post pursuant to an fake and purported advertisement dated 30.06.2011 and furthermore, the petitioner collected a certificate dated 21.09.2011 from the Addl. Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department (named R.P. Mazumdar) with the seal regarding not getting ad-hoc grant by Barkhetri College which bears a serious doubt of its genuineness.
(viii). During the tenure of Akan Ch. Choudhury as President of Governing Body, Barkhetri College, the petitioner was illegally appointed as Principal of the said College, although he lacked requisite qualification. The Ph.D. degree of the petitioner is fake.
The allegation is that the petitioner did not obtained Migration Certificate from the Gauhati University to pursue his Ph.D. course which as per the complaint reveals from the letter dated 01.08.2017 issued by the Registrar, Gauhati University issued under letter No.GU/AFF/2017/4944. And further alleged that the complaint came to know that
A person can be held liable for forgery and cheating if they collude in the creation and use of a forged document, even if they are not the direct maker of that document.
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of forgery or misappropriation against the petitioner, leading to the quashing of all proceedings.
Point of Law : High Court cannot interfere with investigation in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The continuation of criminal proceedings against an individual is an abuse of process when substantiated evidence negates the charges, as affirmed by the High Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of law and the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR and all crimi....
The court quashed the FIR under Section 420 IPC, finding no cognizable offence and highlighting the violation of natural justice principles in the registration process.
A second prosecution for the same offense and facts is barred by the principles of double jeopardy. Furthermore, post-trial commencement, investigating agencies cannot conduct further investigations ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.