The court held that allegations in the FIR constituted a prima facie case of criminal wrongdoing, warranting continuation of the investigation.

JUDGMENT :

(KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.)

Heard Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.944/2019; Mr. D. Mananta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1461/2019. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent in both the criminal petitions and Mr. B.K. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3 in both the criminal petitions.

2. Both the criminal petitions having arisen out of the same FIR, is taken up together for final disposal at the admission stage by this common judgment and order.

3. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973 for quashing of the FIR registered as Dhemaji PS Case No.305/2019 under Sections 120B/419/420/468/471 of IPC ([Corresponding G.R. Case No.786/2019(DMJ)].

4. The facts of the case is that the respondent no.2 and 3/ complainant has lodged an FIR dated 02.08.2019 before the jurisdictional police station alleging that the accused no.1/petitioner in criminal petition No.944/2019 had purchased a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha of 1^st class Basti land under Block No.2 of Dhemaji Nagar covered by Dag No.45 of Periodic Patta No.35 by fraudulent means and conspiracy.

5. It is further alleged that the said land is mutated in the names of the grandfather of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. Late Bhadreswar Chamua, late Tanka Bakal and one Anupama Gohain.

6. It is further alleged that the accused no.1 and 2 (petitioner no.1 and 2) in Criminal Petition No.944/2019 in connivance with accused Nos. 3 to 7 (Accused No.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) being the petitioner Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Criminal Petition No.944/2019 and accused no.6/petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1461/2019 with the aid of administrative machinery for personal gain along with Officers of Circle Office, Deputy Registrar, Revenue Branch of Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Dhemaji had forged the land documents and registered the deed.

7. It is further alleged that from the RTI reply, it has come out that late Tanka Bakal died on 23.10.1987. However, he has been shown alive on the affidavit dated 15.07.2014 i.e. NOC for the sale transaction in question.

Accordingly, a case has been registered under Sections 120B/419/420/468/471 of IPC against the petitioners.

8. Pertinent that, prior to filing the said FIR, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had earlier filed a complaint under Sections 420/468/471/34 of IPC on 07.09.2018 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji, which was registered as complaint case C.R. Case No.182/2018, however, the complaint case was not proceeded and later on the FIR was filed. It is in-fact submitted at the bar that the said complaint case was also withdrawn by the respondent Nos.2 and 3

9. Pursuant to the registration of the instant FIR, notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C has been issued to the petitioner no.5 for appearing before the jurisdictional Investigating Officer. Situated thus, the instant criminal petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR and the said notice dated 06.08.2019. In the instant criminal petitions, this Court at the time of issuance of notice, by order dated 19.08.2019 was pleased to stay the investigation in connection with the said FIR. Accordingly, the investigation remain stayed.

10. Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.944/2019 submits that the petitioner no.1 is the purchaser of the subject land and the land being in the name of one Anupama Gohain, no criminal action can be brought out against him.

11. He further submits that in good faith, he had purchased the land from the said Anupama Gohain. He further submits that Anupama Gohain is not named as an accused in the FIR.

12. He further submits that no criminal case is made out on the face of the FIR and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

13. He further submits that the rest of the petitioners being officers of the jurisdictional