IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the power to quash an FIR is limited to cases where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offense, and that the determination of the merits of the allegations must occur during trial.

JUDGMENT :

(Robin Phukan, J.)

In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Mrs. Anjali Borgohain, has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the 'F.I.R.' of Dispur P.S. Case No. 2536 of 2022 dated 02.12.2022, under Sections 419,420,468,471 and 34 IPC, lodged by respondent No.2, Mr. Sanjeev Borgohain.

2. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are adumbrated herein below:-

“The petitioner, Mrs. Anjali Borgohain, is the widow of Ex-Serviceman, Late Captain Laxmi Prasad Borgohain, who served in Border Security Force (BSF) as Commandant and received President's Police Medal for his meritorious service. Late husband of the petitioner had constructed a G + 1 (one) storied building at Rukmini-Nagar, Guwahati, in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam, and the said property is under the possession of the petitioner, where she is residing along with her children, including the informant/respondent No.2, when they were young and not married. Mr. Samant Borgohain is the eldest son of the petitioner, who has been provided with the 1st floor of the shared-building and Mr. Shantanu Borgohain is the 2nd son of the Petitioner, who stays separately with his family, as he works in a Tea-Estate. The respondent No.2, Mr. Sanjeev Borgohain, is the youngest son of the petitioner and he stays on the shared ground-floor with the petitioner.

After the demise of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner and all her children agreed that the 2nd floor of the building will be given to Mr. Shantanu Borgohain, the 2nd son of the petitioner, for his own accommodation and hence to complete the construction of the said floor, Mr. Shantanu Borgohain, the 2nd son of the petitioner, took two loans, amounting Rs. 27,08,526/-in the year 2016, from UCO Bank, which was later taken over by ICICI Bank and another top-up loan from ICICI Bank, amounting Rs. 26,32,094/-was taken in the year 2018. The petitioner and her sons were the co-applicants of the said loans. The said loan was taken by mortgaging the said property of Lt. (Captain) L.P. Borgohain. After taking these loans Mr. Santanu Borgohain had defaulted in making the payments of the loans to the ICICI Bank, as he had lost his job of Tea-Estate Manager, due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Thereafter, legal notices were issued to all the applicants to the loan, by the bank officials and then the respondent No.2, Shri Sanjeev Borgohain, taking advantage of the arduous, unfortunate and unfavorable condition, caused by the Covid-19 Pandemic, compelled his own brother Santanu Borgohain to give up his own share in the property left behind by the petitioner's husband Lt. (Captain) L.P. Borgohain and promised to take over the said loan by entering into a notarised agreement on 17th day of March' 2020. Thereafter, the respondent No.2, Mr. Sanjeev Borgohain, took over the two bank loans and also took the respective share of Mr. Santanu Borgohain in the shared property by coercing and threatening him that if Santanu Borgohain did not give his respective share in the property, then he would file a complaint/F.I.R. against him alleging that he has taken the said loans by committing fraud and hence the Santanu Borgohain had entered into a notarised agreement with the Informant. Thereafter, the Informant had demanded more shares in the property. Having no other option, in view of the unfavorable circumstances, Santanu Borgohain had agreed to the demands of the Informant, and entered into a notarised agreement and transferred both the loans and his respective share in the property to the respondent No.2, whereby, the respondent No.2 had agreed to repay the principal loan amount along with the additional interest. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 and his wife started eyeing up the petitioner’s share in the property and when the petitioner expressed her desire to give her own share of the property to Santanu Borgohain, who was homeless by then, the respondent No.2 revolted an