Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 7459
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA, J
ARIJIT DASGUPTA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR – Respondent
Crl.Pet. / 1073 / 2023
MS. R CHOUDHURY, Ld. Adv., Mr. R. J. BARUAH, Ld. Addl.. P.P., (R-1), MR. M A CHOUDHURY (R-2)
The court ruled that a lack of direct evidence against the petitioner does not justify quashing the charge-sheet, as documents were prepared at his instance, supporting the trial's continuation.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120
(B), 420, 468, 471 - Quashing of charge-sheet - The petitioner, an advocate, sought to quash the charge-sheet alleging involvement in forgery related to a No Objection Certificate (NOC) - The court found no direct evidence against the petitioner; however, it noted that documents were prepared at his instance, justifying the trial's continuation - The court emphasized that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 is limited to preventing abuse of legal process and securing the ends of justice. (Paras 2, 14, 18)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - The court reiterated that it cannot conduct a mini-trial at this stage and must examine whether a prima facie case exists based on the FIR and evidence collected. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of involvement in a conspiracy to forge signatures for an NOC related to a land sale. The FIR was filed after discrepancies arose regarding the NOC. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting he only drafted the Sale Deed as per client instructions.
Findings of Court:
The court found no prima facie evidence against the petitioner for quashing the charge-sheet, emphasizing that the trial could proceed based on the materials available.
Issues: Whether the charge-sheet against the petitioner should be quashed due to lack of evidence and his claimed innocence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of direct evidence does not preclude the continuation of the trial, as the documents were prepared at the petitioner’s instance, maintaining that the law requires a prima facie case to proceed.
Result: Criminal petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 21.06.2024 Date of Judgment : 18.09.2024 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of the Charge-sheet, vide C.S. No.261/2023 dated 30.06.2023 under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of IPC, arising out of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 185/2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 579/2022.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1. In late September 2020, Ashim Kumar Dey, along with Raju Ghosh and Purnendu Kumar Saha, came to the petitioner’s chamber with a rough draft of an agreement for the sale of a plot of land. They requested the petitioner to make any necessary corrections. As an advocate, the petitioner made the required corrections, and the agreement for sale was registered on the same day. After the execution of the agreement, differences arose between Raju Ghosh (the buyer) and Purnendu Kumar Saha (the seller), leading Raju Ghosh to file a Title Suit (T.S. No. 21/2021) before the Court of the learned Munsiff No. II, Karimganj, seeking specific performance of the contract. The petitioner being an advocate conducted the case for Raju Ghosh. The suit was later transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj, and renumbered as Title Suit No. 42/2021.
3.2. Eventually, due to the intervention of some elderly people, the dispute was amicably settled between Raju Ghosh and Purnendu Kumar Saha, and a sale deed was executed (Sale Deed No. 1304 of 2021) on 07-10-2021 at the Sub-Registry Office, Karimganj. Subsequently, both parties filed a compromise petition in T.S. Case No. 42/2021 on 18-02-2022, which was accepted by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj, on 02-03-2022.
3.3. Later, the petitioner learned that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj (No. 251 dated 20-09-2021) in connection with the Sale Deed had been manipulated, by forging signatures of officials. In response, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (‘ADC’ for short), Karimganj, directed the Circle Officer to instruct Sudipta Das and Ranalal Dey, whose signatures were allegedly forged to file an FIR. However, the ADC subsequently retracted this directive on 04-03-2022. Despite this, Sudipta Das and Ranalal Dey jointly filed an FIR on 16-03-2022 before the Officer-in-Charge, Karimganj Police Station alleging inter-alia that an NOC vide No. 251(A) was issued from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, but for issuance of the same, they had not submitted any report from the office of the Circle Office. Later on, they discovered that an unknown person had submitted a forged report on 11-11-2020. The FIR was registered as Karimganj P.S. Case No. 185/2022 under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC.
3.4. It is stated that the petitioner had performed his professional duty by drafting the Sale Deed as an advocate. However, the police threatened to arrest him in connection with the FIR dated 16-03-2022, prompting him to approach this Court. Consequently, by Order dated 28-07-2022 in AB/1630/2023, this Court granted him pre-arrest bail. After the completion of the investigation in connection with Karimganj P.S. Case No. 185/2022, the Investigating Officer (‘IO’ for short) submitted the Charge-Sheet being numbered as C.S. No. 261/2023 on 30-06-2023 under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of the IPC, including the petitioner’s name along with three others. Subsequently, the learned CJM, Karimganj, took cognizance of the charge sheet on 12-07-2023, and the case is currently at the stage of appearance.
3.5. It is further stated that there is no evidence against the petitioner; however, the IO included his name in the charge sheet mechanically and whimsically, solely to harass him. During the
