The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, and the court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent No.1, i.e. State of Assam and Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the private respondent No.2.

2. This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by Shri Kishor Bhattacharjee and Smti Papun Bhattacharjee for quashing the First Information Report of Geetanagar P.S. Case No.308/2019, registered under sections 120B/385/420/468/34 IPC, lodged by informant Keshab Ch. Das on 25.07.2019.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:-

“On 25.07.2019, one Keshab Ch. Das of Zoo Narengi Road, Guwahati, lodged one F.I.R. with the Geetanagar Police Station, alleging inter alia amongst others that on 24.07.2019, at about 11 am, two persons came to his residence and introduced themselves as Shri Kishor Bhattacharjee and Smti Papun Bhattacharjee and since he and his wife were absent, they handed over to his son some papers and demanded a sum of Rs.14,25,000/- and asked his son to make payment immediately else they would take action against him. On 25.07.2019, while he reached home then he had gone through the papers and found that the said two persons had fraudulently made the said papers of his Firm and the signatures thereon are also not of him. It is also stated that Kishor Bhattacharjee was working as Asstt. Manager in Canara Bank Zonal Office situated at G.S. Road, Guwahati and he was familiar to him as he had availed business loans from Canara Bank from the year 2005 to 2008 and Kishor Bhattacharjee had dealt with all his papers relating to his business loan in the name of K.C. Das & Associates and Brahmaputra Coach Builders and at that time he was demanding bribe from him and then he had reported the matter to the Zonal Manager. It is also stated that Kishor Bhattacharjee had misused the signatures of many customers and misappropriated bank money for which he was officially suspended and dismissed from the bank job in the year 2008-2009. It is also stated that he was not aware of Kunal Kumar Pant, Notary Officer and Advocate - Mr. M.M. Alam, who had identified the money receipt and he never visited any Notary Office in Kolkata and he had never put any reference number in the money receipt and the same was false and the letter head of his Firm and the seal and his signature thereon all are forged.

Upon the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge, Geetanagar Police Station has registered a case, being Geetanagar P.S. Case No.308/2019, under sections 120(B)/385/420/468/341 IPC, and endorsed S.I. Pranab Baishya to investigate the same. The I.O. then started the investigation by visiting the place of occurrence and examining the witnesses.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petition on the following grounds:-

(i) That, the allegations made in the FIR, dated 25.07.2019, even if taken on their face value and accepted in its entirety, do not disclose commission of any offence under section 468/471 IPC, by the petitioners;

(ii) That, the FIR dated 25.07.2019 is the counterblast of Criminal Complaints filed by the petitioners against the respondent No.2;

(iii) That, the respondent No.2 had taken a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the petitioner on different dates in the year 2006 and another sum of Rs.14,25,000/- in the year 2011 and 2012 and issued Money Receipts, which bears his signatures and the signature of the witness, and that there is no elements to constitute any of the ingredients of the offences under section 420/385/468/120(B)/34 IPC against the petitioners;

(iv) That, there is no whisper of allegations in the FIR against the present petitioners for commission of the offence under which the present case has been registered and that the petitioners have no mens-rea, which would bring their action with in ambit of culpability of the offences mentioned in the F