SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 811

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Pranjal Sharma, S/o. Late Padmadhar Sarma – Petitioner 
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI), Rep. By SC, CBI Anti-Corruption Branch, (ACB) And Anr. – Respondents 
Crl.Pet./441 of 2026
Decided On : 14-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P Mahanta, C. Sarma, MS. P. Saharia
For the Respondent: Ms. M. Kumari.

When exercising inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court must not conduct a mini-trial or resolve contested evidentiary issues. If a prima facie case exists and no mala fides are apparent, the matter must proceed to trial for the evaluation of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 8 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 - Inherent powers of High Court - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Allegations of corruption and illegal gratification - Whether proceedings can be quashed at threshold - Held, High Court should not conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidentiary reliability - Sufficiency of prima facie material justifies trial - (Paras 9, 10, 15, 17)

(B) Quashing of FIR and Charge sheet - Economic offences - Scope of jurisdiction - When exercising inherent powers to quash, the court is limited to determining if sufficient material exists to proceed against the accused - Evaluation of evidence and credibility rests with the trial judge - (Paras 10, 17)

Facts of the case:
Accused individuals faced allegations of corruption and illegal gratification regarding the award of supply contracts. The investigating authority relied upon intercepted communications and a reported trap operation to substantiate these claims. The petitioners sought to quash the resulting FIR and charge sheet, contending that the accusations were based on misinterpreted private conversations and lacked a valid evidentiary basis.

Findings of Court:
The court examined the charge sheet and concluded that sufficient prima facie material existed to proceed with the trial. It held that the petitioners' arguments concerning the interpretation of intercepted evidence and the veracity of the prosecution's claims should be presented during the trial or at the stage of framing charges, rather than through a pre-trial inquiry.

Issues: The main issues were whether the court should quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold and whether the court should conduct a detailed assessment of the collected evidence at this stage of the litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the exercise of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings is limited and does not extend to conducting a mini-trial. Where a prima facie case is established and no mala fides are evident, the court will not embark on an inquiry into the reliability of evidence, which is the primary function of the trial court.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual basis of corruption allegations under pc act (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. applicability of section 482 crpc for quashing proceedings (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. prohibition of mini-trials in quashing applications (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

Heard learned Counsel Mr. P. Mahanta for the Petitioners, Nirmalendu Saha who is the petitioner of Criminal Petition No.438/2026 and Pranjal Sharma, the petitioner of Criminal Petition No. 441/ 2026. Nirmalendu Saha was a Professor of the NEHU University, whereas Pranjal Sharma was a businessman. Charge sheet has been laid against both the petitioners, Nirmalendu Saha and Pranjal Sharma and both the petitioners have filed the aforementioned petitions to quash the charge sheet laid against them with an additional prayer to quash the FIR lodged against them. Both the petitions are taken up together as the petitions stem from the same cause of action

2. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, CBI Ms. M. Kumari that the genesis of the case is that both the accused petitioners, Nirmalendu Saha and Pranjal Sarma are alleged to have been involved in engaging in corrupt financial practices for supply of contractual work to the supplier Pranjal Sharma by Nirmalendu Saha who was the Head of Department of Zoology at the time of his retirement from North Eastern Hill University, Shillong (NEHU). Charge sheet has been laid against both the accused petitioners Nirmalendu Saha and Pranjal Sharma. Charges are succinctly described as follows:-

3. Professor Nirmalendu Saha joined as Lecturer of the NEHU in the year 1988 and was working as Dean of School of Life Sciences with four departments under him viz.:

Department of Botany,

Department of Zoology,

Department of Chemistry

Department of Biotechnology & Bioinformatics.

3.1. He was the academic head of these departments, whereas the other accused petitioner, Pranjal Sharma, established one Company, namely M/s Molbiogen on 27.01.2014 in Guwahati. Both the petitioners will be referred to by their names for the sake of brevity. Pranjal Sama's company dealt with supply of Laboratory items related to research in biology, physics and chemistry, equipment/object/material and machines through GeM, but if the materials were not available on GeM, NEHU used to purchase it through tender. Every department has a Local Purchase committee consisting of 3 to 4 HoD or professors to purchase the items as per requirements of the department as per rules/regulation of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. In the Department of Zoology, there was a local purchase committee in which Professor S. R. Hajong was the Chairperson and the present petitioner, Nirmalendu Saha was a Member.

3.2 It was also alleged and charged that during the financial years 2024-2025, M/s. Molbiogen, Guwahati supplied articles amounting to Rs.2,10,685/- and at that time relating to the supply of the articles Nirmalendu Saha was the Principal Investigator, Department of Zoology. Again, in the same financial year, 2024-25, M/s. Molbiogen supplied articles amounting to Rs.2,48,995/- and Professor Nirmalendu Saha was also a Principal Investigator of the SERB project. Another set of articles amounting to Rs. 2,30,100 for the period 2024-2026 was supplied by Pranjal Sharma through his Company, M/s. Molbiogen. It is also alleged that Pranjal Sharma was continuously the lowest bidder in the tenders floated under the supervision of the Principal Investigator, Nirmalendu Saha.

3.3. It is alleged and charged that Nirmalendu Saha was about to retire on 31.12.2025 and he demanded an undue gratification of Rs. 3,43,000/- as reward from co-accused Pranjal Sharma for favouring him with allocation of multiple orders. The place where the undue gratification was to be handed over was a guest house in the Guwahati University campus.

3.4 It is also alleged and charged that due to his nefarious activities Pranjal Sharma was always under surveillan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top