2025 Supreme(Gau) 599
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Rajesh Prasad Gupta, S/o- Late Bindeswari Prasad - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.890 of 2018
Decided on : 17-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. K. Baidya, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. S. H. Bora, Mr. D. Mahanta, Advocate
The court ruled that mere allegations without evidence of fraudulent inducement do not establish the offense of cheating under IPC, warranting quashing of charges.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 417 - Quashing of charge - The petitioner sought to quash the charge framed under Section 417 IPC for cheating, asserting no criminality was established by the prosecution's evidence - The FIR alleged that the petitioner, as Chairman of the Lakhipur Town Committee, colluded to manufacture false tender notices, misleading the public and authorities - The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of cheating as defined under IPC - The court emphasized that mere allegations without evidence of fraudulent inducement do not suffice to sustain criminal charges - The order framing charges was quashed. (Paras 2, 19, 22, 23)
(B) Criminal Proceedings - Continuation of proceedings - The court held that continuation of criminal proceedings without sufficient evidence of a crime constitutes an abuse of the court's process. (Paras 21, 22)
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D. K. Baidya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. D. Mahanta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/informant.
2. By way of this petition under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 10.07.2018 whereby charge under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) was framed against the petitioner, the Charge-sheet No. 274/2014 and the proceedings thereof in connection with G.R. Case No. 1012/2013 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/informant lodged an FIR on 26.05.2013 alleging inter- alia that the Lakhipur Town Committee has informed the General public, the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara District and the Circle Officer, Lakhipur Revenue Circle that they have published the Tender Notice amounting to cost of Rs. 1415.17 lakh for four numbers of works under “NLCPR- 2008/2009 under Lakhipur Town Committee” in “Dainiak Agradoot” and in “The Assam Post” in its issue dated 19.05.2013, but however, no such tender notice from Lakhipur Town Committee was seen to be printed in the above mentioned newspapers. It is accordingly alleged that the Chairman of the Lakhipur Town Committee i.e., the petitioner in collusion with some employees of the committee without giving any notice in the aforesaid two newspapers has cheated the General public, the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara District and the Circle Officer, Lakhipur Revenue Circle by manufacturing two tender notices. The said FIR has been registered as Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 265/2013 dated 26.05.2013 under Section 120(B)/465/468/471/420/409 of IPC. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and Charge-sheet was submitted on 22.12.2014 by Charge-sheet No. 274/2014. Upon the aforesaid Charge-sheet being submitted, the trial Court by order dated 10.07.2018 framed charge under Section 417 of IPC against the petitioner and accordingly, issued summons to all the prosecution witnesses. Situated thus, the present petition has been filed for quashing the aforesaid order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the trial Court framing charge against the petitioner.
4. Mr. D. K. Baidya, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no criminality can be said to be made out in the face of the material collected by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case. He further submits that it is also apparent from the material collected by the prosecution especially the statements of the witnesses who are employees in the Office of the Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Dispur, Guwahati that the petitioner had forwarded the advertisement in question to be published in the newspapers. He accordingly submits that the continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner is totally unjustified.
5. Per contra Mr. D. Mahanta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/informant submits that the enquiry held by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Urban Development Department in connection with the anomalies in Lakhipur Town Committee clearly reveals that the petitioner has committed illegalities while discharging his duties as Chairman of the Lakhipur Town Committee. He further submits that in view of the enquiry report the criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled.
6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments made by the learned Counsel for both the contending parties, and also perused the material available on record.
7. Apt at the outset to refer to the contents of the subject FIR which reads as hereunder:
To,
The Officer-In-Charge
Lakhipur Police Station
Date:
Compla
inant: Anisur Rahman, Son of Ajijur Rahmari, village: Ward No.II(Amulapatty)
P.S:Lakhipur, Dist:Goalpara(Assam)
Sir,
Most respectfully it is stated that The Lakhipur T