IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Mitali Thakuria, J.
Krishna Dey, S/o Pronoy Dey – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam Rep. By The PP, Assam And Ors. – Respondents
Crl.Pet./1269/2022
Decided On : 03-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal proceedings initiation and details. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contentions regarding jurisdiction and fir validity. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments about the nature of allegations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. defense's assertions against charges. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court's observation on case merits. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. legal principles guiding quashing requests. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 7. court's final dismissal of the petition. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
Mitali Thakuria, J.
Heard Mr. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR lodged by the informant/respondent No. 2, which is registered under Goalpara Police Station under Sections 420 /406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1088/2021 along with Charge-Sheet No. 232/2021 dated 30.11.2021 and also prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief is that, he is a businessman by profession who deals with bulk supply of locally made brooms to different parts of the State of Assam. However, to his utter surprise, he had found that on 22.05.2021, an FIR was lodged by the informant/respondent No. 2, stating inter-alia, that he had a joint family business under the name and style of “Farjana Enterprise” dealing with broomsticks (Jharu). On 09.04.2021, one Shri Sanjib Saha, son of late Nani Gopal Saha, contacted the petitioner for bulk supply of broomsticks from Dengaon in the district of Karbi Anglong, Assam, to Goalpara. After negotiating the price with the petitioner for the supply of broomsticks, Sanjib Saha informed respondent No. 2 about the arrangements. Thereafter, on 09.04.2021, the informant/ respondent No. 2 gave a 12-wheeler truck on rent and sent it to Dengaon to bring the broomsticks as per the contract with the present petitioner. On 10.04.2021, the broomsticks were loaded on the said truck, and necessary transit documents, including the transit passed etc., were handed over to the informant /respondent No. 2 upon payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) through his mobile internet banking system into the petitioner’s bank account maintained at Axis Bank, Goalpara. It is further alleged that after payment of the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs), the petitioner immediately fled away from the scene keeping his mobile phone in switched-off mode. Consequently, the informant/ respondent No. 2 had to unload the said truck, as he could not contact with the accused/petitioner. Thereafter, he lodged the FIR at Goalpara Police Station, which was registered as Goalpara P.S. Case No. 316/2021 under Sections 420 /406 of IPC.
4. It is submitted that, in actual fact, the case is that, one Farhana Yasmin Ahmed wife of Sahid Hussain from Goalpara who is also arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the instant petition, had entered into a verbal contract with the present petitioner for purchase of the broomsticks weighing about 15 tons for consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs). Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 sent a 12-wheeler truck bearing registration No. WB 11B 8433 to Dengaon in Karbi Anglong and accordingly, the articles were also loaded on the truck on 10.04.2021. After loading the truck, the respondent No.3 paid Rs. 11,10,001/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs ten thousand one) into the petitioner’s bank account at Axis Bank, Hojai branch, and promised to pay the remaining amount upon reaching the destination in Goalpara. It is further stated by the petitioner that he collected the broomsticks from the local villagers and obtained the requisite transit pass for carrying the broomsticks, which was issued by the forest officials o
The allegations in the FIR establish a prima facie case under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, justifying the continuation of criminal proceedings despite intertwining civil aspects.
The court ruled that allegations in the FIR did not constitute a criminal offence, characterizing the matter as a civil dispute, allowing quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The court ruled that an FIR cannot be quashed based on allegations of mala fides if it discloses cognizable offences, emphasizing the necessity of a trial to assess the truth of the allegations.
The court emphasized the limited circumstances in which an FIR/complaint can be quashed, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised and that the court should not interfere with the investigation unless no cognizable offence is disclosed. I....
The court upheld the FIR against the petitioner, ruling that sufficient allegations existed to constitute cognizable offences, and the truth of these allegations could not be evaluated at the quashin....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations justifying investigation, the caution against interfering with ongoing investigations, and the need for....
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.