ORDER

Date : 20-05-2022 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate Assam for the respondent nos.

1 – 5.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the writ petitioner expressing dissatisfaction with the manner of investigation that is being carried out in connection with Panbazar Police Station Case no. 303/2020 registered for the offence under Section 468, Indian Penal Code [IPC] at the instance of the writ petitioner as the informant.

3. The case projected on behalf of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner and pattadar of a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas & 1½ Lessas, covered by Dag no. 532 [Old]/344[New] and patta no. 121[Old]/892[New], located in Revenue Village – Gotanagar, Mouza – Jalukbari within Kamrup [Metro] district [hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject-land’ for easy reference]. It has been averred that the petitioner had handed over the subject-land to a builder firm, M/s D.S. Realtors where the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 are the partners, by executing a Power of Attorney dated 19.02.2015 on the condition that M/s D.S. Realtors would hand over the petitioner’s share in the said building, contemplated to be constructed over the subject-land, within a period of 3 years and 6 months from the date of permission accorded by the competent authority.

3.1. It has been alleged that the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 instead of initiating the project, prepared a forged sale deed putting the same sale deed number and same date of registration by scanning the sale deed of the petitioner and submitted it before the Revenue Authorities of Kamrup [M] for mutation and, thus, got the subject-land mutated in their favour. Having learnt about the alleged act of forgery upon verification of the documents available in the office of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority [GMDA], the petitioner had earlier lodged a First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-charge, Panbazar Police Station and the said FIR was registered as Panbazar Police Station Case no. 299/2018 under Sections 406/420/468/34, IPC. In the course of investigation of the case, the documents were verified, according to the petitioner, from the office of the concerned Sub- Registrar and it was revealed that the sale deed submitted by the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 was a forged one with same registration number.

3.2. It has been averred that the sale deed was executed and registered in favour of the petitioner in the year 1984. The concerned authority in the Revenue branch had thereafter, cancelled the mutation done on the basis of the forged sale deed and restored the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the subject-land. It has been asserted that the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 had, in the meantime, obtained permission from the authority in the GMDA by placing the same forged sale deed and mutation order despite they were in the nature of forged documents and obtained permission from the GMDA.

3.3. The petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6159/2019 seeking proper reliefs in respect of the afore-stated alleged transaction. The investigating authority had thereafter, submitted a charge sheet in connection with Panbazar Police Station Case no. 299/2018 against the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the course of investigation of Panbazar Police Station Case no. 299/2018, the alleged forged sale deed was never sent for forensic examination and the documents relating to the mutation proceedings and the sale deed copy furnished by the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 before the GMDA for granting them permission, were never seized.

3.4. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 had approached this Court seeking the b