Gauhati High Court
Crl.Pet./74/2021 on 23 April, 2026
GAHC010018592021
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
Crl.Pet./74/2021
Sri Rana Goswami,
Son of Late Nilakanta Goswami,
Resident of Rajabari, Jorhat,
Dist.- Jorhat, Assam, 785015.
........Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by P.P. Assam.
2. S.I. Probin Neog,
Investigating Officer,
Selehghat Police Outpost,
P.S. Teok, Dist. Jorhat, Assam.
.......Respondents
– B E F O R E-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. Z. Kamar (Sr. Adv.),
Mr. P.D. Choudhury.
Advocate for the respondents : Mr. P. Borthakur (Addl. P.P.)
Page 1 of 28
Date on which judgment is reserved : 02.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.04.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment? : N/A
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. P.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondents.
2. In this petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has
prayed for setting aside and quashing the entire criminal
proceedings of G.R. Case No. 903/2016 arising out of Jorhat P.S.
Case No. 636/2016, pending before the court of learned S.D.J.M(S),
Jorhat and the order dated 28.10.2020, passed by the learned
S.D.J.M(S), Jorhat taking cognizance of the offences under Section
468/471 I.P.C., and all subsequent orders, passed thereafter.
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition,
are briefly stated as under:-
“On 02.04.2016, an F.I.R. (ANNEXURE-1) was lodged with
the Officer-in-Charge, Jorhat Police Station by one Sri
Ishwar Prasanna Bordoloi and three others, stating inter-
alia, amongst others, that the petitioner, a candidate of the
Indian National Congress, in the forthcoming AssemblyPage 2 of 28
Elections, in a press conference held on 17/03/2016, at
Jorhat Press Club claimed that he had passed B.Com.
Examination from Dibrugarh University, in the year 1981
and his Roll number, in B. Com. Examination, was 858.
The affidavit filed by the petitioner in his nomination also
claimed that he has completed B.Com from J.B. College,
Jorhat under Dibrugarh University and passed in the year
1981. But, subsequently, the informant, on query, came to
know that the petitioner had not passed the B.Com.
Examination in the year 1981. The informants got a copy
of the Mark Sheet (Against the Registration No. 9334 Roll
No. 858, College -J.B. College, Examination B.Com) as
furnished by the Office of the Dibrugarh University,
wherein it is categorically stated that the petitioner has
scored 25 marks in English Paper and his Mark Sheet
shows that he has failed in the B.Com. Examination against
the aforesaid Roll Number. One Sri Pratap Jyoti Dutta,
Digambor Road, Jorhat had filed an application under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Office of
Registrar, Dibrugarh University and the Dibrugarh
University, vide its letter dated DU/RG/PILO/B/5001 dtd.
28/03/2016 furnished the reply with the Mark Sheet of the
petitioner, bearing Registration No. 9334, Roll No. 858,
College J.B. College, Jorhat had acquired 25 marks in
English subject and was declared failed. The informants
also alleged that the petitioner has made false statement
in his affidavit, manufactured forged Mark Sheet and hasPage 3 of 28
deceived/cheated the voters of the Jorhat Assembly
Constituency. From the reporting in the Sentinel Paper,
dated 02/04/2016, it has come to know that the petitioner
has presented a Mark Sheet where he has claimed to score
21 marks in English and 9 in Internal Assessment which is
totally contradictory to the statement of the Authority of
the Dibrugarh University which shows that forgery was
committed by the petitioner.
Upon the aforesaid FIR, the Officer-in-Charge, Jorhat
Police Station had registered a case being Jorhat P.S. No.
636/16, under Section 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code,
and started the investigation of the case. During
investigation, the Investigating Officer (I/O) recorded the
statement of the petitioner and seized the certified copies
of the B.Com. final Mark-Sheet, Admit Card and Pass
Certificate (ANNEXURE-2 Series) from the residence of the
petitioner on 16-11-2016, for further investigation and also
received a Mark-Sheet (ANNEXURE-3) which was provided
to the informant as well as R.T.I. activist, by the Dibrugarh
University, wherein, the petitioner was declared as failed.
However, the same is under challenge before the court of
the Civil Judge, by way of filing a Title Suit.
Then on completion of the investigation, the I/O has filed
the Charge-Sheet in Jorhat P.S. Case No. 636/2016, being
Charge-Sheet No. 328/2020, dated 30-06-2020
(ANNEXURE-4) under Section 468/471- I.P.C.
Page 4 of 28
After the Charge-Sheet in Jorhat P.S. Case No.
636/2016 being filed under Section 468/471 of the Indian
Penal Code, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat,
transferred the case, i.e. G.R. Case No. 903/2016 to the
Court of the Learned S.D.J.M. (S), Jorhat for trial vide
order dated 28/10/2020(ANNEXURE-5). Then on the same
date i.e. 28.10.2020 the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Jorhat,
received the case records of the G.R. Case No. 903/2016,
and took cognizance of the offences under Sections
468/471 I.P.C. against the petitioner and thereafter had
issued summons vide order dated 28.10.2020 (ANNEXURE-
6) fixing the same on 27.11.2020, for appearance.
4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the
present petition on the following grounds that :-
(a) The learned Court below had failed to consider the
materials available on records in its proper perspective
while passing the order dated 28.10.2020 and all
subsequent orders thereof passed in the G.R. Case No.
903/2016 corresponding to Jorhat P.S. Case No. 636/2016;
(b) The learned Court below, while passing the order dated
28.10.2020, failed to consider that the Authorities of J.B.
College, Jorhat has admitted the facts to the effect that
the petitioner had passed the B.Com. Examination from
their College in the year 1981 and the same is supported
by the result sheet and mark sheet issued in favour of thePage 5 of 28
petitioner. Further, the learned Court below has also failed
to consider that the T.S. No. 49/2017, filed by the
petitioner for a declaration, is pending before the
appropriate Civil Court and as such, the Learned S.D.J.M.
(S), Jorhat,, erroneously took cognizance against the
petitioner vide order dated 28.10.2020.
C. The challenge made in the suit is the mark sheet which
was given to some individuals in connection with the R.T.I.
Application and the Jorhat police was provided the same
mark sheet on the basis of which the police concluded the
investigation and submitted the Charge Sheet No.
328/2020 dated 30.06.2020 before the Learned C.J.M,
Jorhat and pending disposal of the said title suit, present
criminal proceeding is bad in law, and therefore, same is
liable to be set aside.
D. The locus standi to file any F.I.R. or any case pertaining to
an election matter lies only with the Election Commission
and not with any individual person and hence, the Charge
Sheet filed and the entire criminal proceeding of the G.R.
Case No. 903/2016, corresponding to Jorhat P.S. Case No.
636/2016, pending in the learned S.D.J.M(S), Jorhat as
well as the F.I.R of Jorhat P.S. Case No. 636/2016 is liable
to be set aside and quashed.
5. Mr. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the present petition is preferred by the petitioner for quashing
the FIR of Jorhat P.S. Case No. 636/2016, pending before the
Page 6 of 28
learned SDJM(S), Jorhat, and also the order dated 28.10.2020,
passed by the learned SDJM(S), Jorhat, in G.R. Case No. 903/2016,
taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 468/471 IPC and
the subsequent orders till disposal of the Title Suit No. 49/2017,
pending before the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat.
5.1. Mr. Kamar also submits that the FIR of Jorhat P.S. Case No.
636/2016, was lodged by four informants with mala fide intention
and that the petitioner had appeared in 2 years B.Com. course at
J.B. College, Jorhat and he was declared passed in the result, and
the Principal of J.B. College had issued the mark sheet showing him
as passed and also issued the provisional certificate. But, the
informants had lodged the FIR falsely to gain political mileage in a
particular political party, and that the petitioner had filed one title
suit, being Title Suit No. 49/2017, for a decree declaring that the
result of the petitioner as per result sheet dated 11.09.1981, issued
by Dibrugarh University under the signature of the defendant No. 3
i.e. the Controller of Examination, Dibrugarh University to different
Colleges under Dibrugarh University, including proforma defendant
No. 4 i.e. J.B. College, Jorhat in the said title suit and the
petitioner’s mark sheet under the signature of the said defendant
No. 3, sent to the said college and that the result of the plaintiff as
disclosed in the said result sheet and also in the mark sheet are
correct, and that the petitioner had passed his B.Com. Examination
held in 1981 and that the B.Com. degree he holds is a valid one;
and also for a decree of declaration that the information submitted
by the office of the defendant No. 2 i.e. the Registrar, Dibrugarh
Page 7 of 28
University, vide letter No. DU/RG/PILO/B/5001, dated 28.03.2016,
in response to an RTI application by the applicant Pratap Jyoti Dutta
of Digambar Road, Jorhat, based on tabulation sheet was wrong;
and also for a permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 1, 2 and
3 to correct their tabulation sheet and to issue a regular B.Com pass
certificate to the petitioner; and in that view of the matter, the
learned CJM, Jorhat ought not to have taken cognizance of the
offence of the charge-sheet filed by the I.O. in Jorhat P.S. Case No.
636/2016, which is now pending before the learned SDJM(S),
Jorhat.
5.2. Mr. Kamar further submits that during investigation, the I.O.
did not examine the Principal of J.B. College, Jorhat and only on the
basis of an RTI application and the reply furnished to the informants
of Jorhat P.S. Case No. 636/2016, the I.O. had submitted the
charge-sheet, and that the informants have no locus standi to file
an FIR in connection with the matter pertaining to Election
Commission, and under such circumstances, Mr. Kamar has
contended to allow this petition by quashing the entire proceeding
of Jorhat P.S. Case No. 636/2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.
903/2016, pending before the learned SDJM(S), Jorhat.
5.3. To bolster his submission, Mr. Kamar has also referred to
three decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:-
(i) Pradip Kumar Kesarwani vs. the State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025
Supreme (SC) 1667 andPage 8 of 28
(ii) Anukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Anr., reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1732.
(iii) Shanti Kumar Panda vs. Shakuntala Devi
reported in (2004) 1 SCC 438;
6. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for
the respondents, has vehemently opposed the petition. Mr.
Borthakur submits that the I.O. after proper investigation, had
submitted the charge-sheet, upon which the learned CJM, Jorhat
had taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 468/471 IPC,
and that the matter is now pending for trial before the learned
SDJM(S), Jorhat. Mr. Borthakur also submits that the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate any ground, not to speak of a plausible
ground, to quash the proceeding pending before the learned
SDJM(S), Jorhat.
6.1. Mr. Borthakur further submits that the law, in relation to the
quashing of an FIR and proceeding, is well settled in a catena of
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, and if the present case is
examined under the propositions laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the said cases, no case for quashing the proceeding could
be demonstrated by the petitioner and under such circumstances,
Mr. Borthakur has contended to dismiss the petition.
7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the
parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the
documents placed on record, and gone through the decisions
referred by Mr. Kamar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Page 9 of 28
8. The law with regard to quashing of an FIR and criminal
proceeding is well settled in a catena of decisions of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, including the decisions in Anukul Singh (supra);
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992
SC 604; A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders
Welfare Association vs. Ramesh Kumar Bung and Ors.,
reported in (2021) 9 SCC 152; Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs.
State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880;
and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401.
8.1. Notably, a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
para 33 of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited
(supra), held as under:
“33. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, our final conclusions on the
principal/core issue, whether the High Court
would be justified in passing an interim
order of stay of investigation and/or “no
coercive steps to be adopted”, during the
pendency of the quashing petition under
Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and in what
circumstances and whether the High Court
would be justified in passing the order of
not to arrest the accused or “no coercive
steps to be adopted” during the investigation
or till the final report/charge-sheet is
filed under Section 173CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not
quashing the criminal proceedings/ complaint/Page 10 of 28
FIR in exercise of powers under Section
482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, our final conclusions
are as under:
33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty
under the relevant provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV
of the Code to investigate into a cognizable
offence.
33.2. Courts would not thwart any
investigation into the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed
in the first information report that the
Court will not permit an investigation to go
on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, as
it has been observed, in the “rarest of rare
cases” (not to be confused with the formation
in the context of death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court cannot
embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability
or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be
an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
Page 11 of 28
33.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from
usurping the jurisdiction of the police,
since the two organs of the State operate in
two specific spheres of activities and one
ought not to tread over the other sphere.
33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the
police are complementary, not overlapping.
33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of
justice, the Court and the judicial process
should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences.
33.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of
the Court do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according to
its whims or caprice.
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts
and details relating to the offence reported.
Therefore, when the investigation by the
police is in progress, the court should not
go into the merits of the allegations in the
FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts
that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may
file an appropriate report/summary before the
learned Magistrate which may be considered by
Page 12 of 28
the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure.
33.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is
very wide, but conferment of wide power
requires the court to be more cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on
the court.
33.14. However, at the same time, the court,
if it thinks fit, regard being had to the
parameters of quashing and the self-restraint
imposed by law, more particularly the
parameters laid down by this Court in R.P.
Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960
SCC OnLine SC 21: AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan
Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has
the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is
made by the alleged accused and the court
when it exercises the power under Section
482CrPC, only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of
a cognizable offence or not. The court is not
required to consider on merits whether or not
the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to
permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR.
33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be
applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are
required to be considered by the High Court
while passing an interim order in a quashing
petition in exercise of powers under Section
482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the
Page 13 of 28
Constitution of India. However, an interim
order of stay of investigation during the
pendency of the quashing petition can be
passed with circumspection. Such an interim
order should not require to be passed
routinely, casually and/or mechanically.
Normally, when the investigation is in
progress and the facts are hazy and the
entire evidence/material is not before the
High Court, the High Court should restrain
itself from passing the interim order of not
to arrest or “no coercive steps to be
adopted” and the accused should be relegated
to apply for anticipatory bail under Section
438CrPC before the competent court. The High
Court shall not and as such is not justified
in passing the order of not to arrest and/or
“no coercive steps” either during the
investigation or till the investigation is
completed and/or till the final report
/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC,
while dismissing/disposing of the quashing
petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
33.17. Even in a case where the High Court is
prima facie of the opinion that an
exceptional case is made out for grant of
interim stay of further investigation, after
considering the broad parameters while
exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India referred to hereinabove, the High
Court has to give brief reasons why such an
interim order is warranted and/or is required
to be passed so that it can demonstrate the
Page 14 of 28
application of mind by the Court and the
higher forum can consider what was weighed
with the High Court while passing such an
interim order.
33.18. Whenever an interim order is passed by
the High Court of “no coercive steps to be
adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the
High Court must clarify what does it mean by
“no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term
“no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said
to be too vague and/or broad which can be
misunderstood and/or misapplied.”
8.2. In the case of Pradip Kumar Kesarwani(supra) while
dealing with the issue, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“20. The following steps should ordinarily
determine the veracity of a prayer for
quashing, raised by an accused by invoking
the power vested in the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:–
(i) Step one, whether the material relied
upon by the accused is sound, reasonable,
and indubitable, i.e., the materials is
of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied
upon by the accused, would rule out the
assertions contained in the charges
levelled against the accused, i.e., the
material is sufficient to reject and
overrule the factual assertions contained
in the complaint, i.e., the material is
such, as would persuade a reasonablePage 15 of 28
person to dismiss and condemn the factual
basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied
upon by the accused, has not been refuted
by the prosecution/complainant; and/or
the material is such, that it cannot be
justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the
trial would result in an abuse of process
of the court, and would not serve the
ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the
affirmative, judicial conscience of the High
Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal – proceedings, in exercise of power
vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Such exercise of power, besides doing justice
to the accused, would save precious court
time, which would otherwise be wasted in
holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings
arising there from) specially when, it is
clear that the same would not conclude in the
conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv
Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal
No. 174 of 2013)]
8.3. In the case of Anukul Singh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in para No. 11.4, has held as under:-
“11.4. Nevertheless, an exception has been
recognized where the defence relies upon
unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence ofPage 16 of 28
sterling quality -such as documents of
undisputed authenticity – which ex facie
demonstrate that continuation of criminal
proceedings would be unjust and oppressive.
This principle was recognized in Suryalakshmi
Cotton Mills Ltd v. Rajvir Industries
Ltd“.(2018) 13 SCC 678, and followed in
subsequent decisions.
8.4. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and
Ors. reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, Hon’ble Supreme
Court has laid down the following guidelines where the power
under Section 482 should be exercised. These are:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation
of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, though it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelized and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
Page 17 of 28
(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate
as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficientPage 18 of 28
ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
We find that the High Court ought to have
exercised its power under Clause (1), (3) and
(5) of the above said judgment.
8.5. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors.
v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors., reported in
(1988) 1 SCC 692, this Court observed as follows:-
“7. The legal position is well settled
that when a prosecution at the initial stage is
asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by
the court is as to whether the uncontrovertedPage 19 of 28
allegations as made prima facie establish the
offence. It is also for the court to take into
consideration any special features which appear
in a particular case to consider whether it is
expedient and in the interest of justice to
permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on
the basis that the court cannot be utilised for
any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of
the court chances of an ultimate conviction are
bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing a criminal
prosecution to continue, the court may while
taking into consideration the special facts of
a case also quash the proceeding even though it
may be at a preliminary stage.”
8.6. This Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and
Ors., reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, observed as
follows:-
“132. The criminal courts are clothed with
inherent power to make such orders as may be
necessary for the ends of justice. Such power
though unrestricted and undefined should not
be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but
should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex
debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice for the administration of which alone
the courts exist. The powers possessed by the
High Court under Section 482 of the Code are
very wide and the very plenitude of the power
requires great caution in its exercise. Courts
must be careful to see that its decision in
exercise of this power is based on soundPage 20 of 28
principles.”
8.7. The proposition of law, which can be crystallised from the
above decisions, is that the accused must be relieved from the
prosecution, even if the allegations are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute any
offence. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection. The court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint.
9. In the instant case, the criminal proceeding, which is being
sought to be quashed, was initiated on the basis of an FIR lodged
by four persons, which is read as under:-
To
The Officer In-Charge, Jorhat Police Station
Dated, Jorhat the 2nd day of April, 2016Sub : Ejahar
Sir,
With due respect I am to inform you that
Rana Goswami, a candidate for Indian National
Congress in the forthcoming Assembly Election, in
a press conference held on 17th day of March, 2016
at Jorhat Press Club claimed that he has passed B.
Com exam from Dibrugarh University in the year
1981 and his Roll NO, in B.Com. Examination was
858, (Copy of the Publication made in the News
Paper Dainik Janambhumi dtd. 19/03/2016, is
annexed herewith).
Page 21 of 28
Subsequently, in the affidavit filed with the
nomination paper Rana Goswami claimed that he has
completed Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com.) from J.B.
College, Jorhat under Dibrugarh University and
passed in the year 1981. But subsequently
petitioner on query came to know that said Rana
Goswami was not passed the B.Com. Examination in
the year 1981. The petitioner got a copy of Mark
Sheet (Against the Registration NO. 9334. Roll No.
858. College J.B. College. Examination B. Com.) as
furnished from the office of the Dibrugarh
University wherein it is categorically stated that
candidate Rana Goswami got 25 marks in English
Paper and his Mark Sheet shows that he has failed
in the B.Com. Examination against the aforesaid
Roll Number.
That from the newspaper publication the
petitioner came to know that said Rana Goswami has
shown a Mark Sheet in a press conference given by
him on 01/04/2016. However, office of the
Registrar of Dibrugarh University vide Reference
No. DU/RG/PILO/B/5001, dtd. 28/03/2016 issued a
letter to Pratap Jyoti Dutta, Digambor Road,
Jorhat, in reference to the reply of RTI
Application. (Copy of the Letter is annexed
herewith). In that reply, Public Information cum
Law Officer, Devraj Sarmah of Dibrugarh University
furnished the Mark Sheet of Rana Goswami,
registration No. 9334 of 1978-79. Roll No. 858.
J.B. College, Jorhat.
That from the perusal of the Mark Sheet as
furnished by the Dibrugarh University Authority,
it is crystal clear that he got 25 Marks in
English Subject and result was declared as failed,
hence it is submitted to make an enquiry with the
Dibrugarh University Authority. Further contact
Page 22 of 28
number of the Registrar (D.U.) is 0373-2370231 and
said number is furnished to Pratap Jyoti Dutta by
the University Authority through the above
referred letter.
That from the information as furnished by
the Dibrugarh University Authority, it is crystal
clear that said Rana Goswami not only made a false
statement in the affidavit, but also manufactured
forged Mark Sheet for unlawful gain. However, by
making false statement through affidavit and
public media has deceived/cheated the voters of
Jorhat Assembly Constituency.
That from the news paper reporting in The
Sentinel dtd. 02/04/2016, it has come to know to
the petitioner that said Rana Goswami has
presented a Mark Sheet before the Press wherein he
claimed that he has secured 21 Marks in English
and got 9 Marks in Internal Assessment which is
clearly in contradiction with the statement of
Authority of Dibrugarh University and from the
statement of Rana Goswami it is crystal Clear that
there is a manipulation and forgery on his part in
the alleged Mark Sheet, shown by him and he is
liable to be punish in accordance to the law.
(Copy of the News Paper Publication in The
Sentinel, dtd. 02/04/2016 is annexed herewith).
That from the above facts and circumstances.
it is crystal clear that said Rana Goswami has
committed the offence of cheating and forgery
along with other offence as punishable in the
provision of law.
The petitioner therefore requests you to
register a case and to act in accordance to the
law.
Yours faithfully:
Page 23 of 28
(1) Ishwar Prasanna Bordoloi
(2) Rintu Goswami,
(3) Kasmir Koustav Borthakur
(4) Gautam Borah
10. It is also to be noted here that after registration of Jorhat P.S.
Case No. 636 of 2016, the same was investigated upon and on
completion of investigation the I.O., had submitted a charge-sheet,
under Section 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, before the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, who had transferred the
case, being G.R. Case No. 903/2016, to the Court of the Learned
S.D.J.M. (S), Jorhat for trial vide order dated 28/10/2020
(ANNEXURE-5). It also appears that then on the same date i.e.
28.10.2020, the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Jorhat, received the case
records of the G.R. Case No. 903/2016, and took cognizance of the
offences under Sections 468/471 I.P.C. against the present
petitioner and thereafter had issued summons vide order dated
28.10.2020 (ANNEXURE-6) fixing the same on 27.11.2020, for
appearance.
11. Thus, the proceeding is not at the initial stage. After filing of
the charge sheet, the learned court below had already taken
cognizance of the same and now it is pending for trial. And having
examined the grounds so taken in this petition for quashing the
entire criminal proceeding, and applying the proposition of law, laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases discussed herein
above, specially, in view of the guidelines in Neeharika
Infrastructure Private Limited (supra), to the facts and
Page 24 of 28
circumstances herein this case, this Court is of the opinion that no
case for quashing the entire proceeding is made out. Present case
also does not fall under Clause (1), (3) and (5) of para No.102 of
the decision in the case of Bhajan Lal(supra). Mr. Borthakur,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondents, has rightly
pointed out that no plausible reason has been assigned by the
petitioner for quashing the aforementioned proceeding, and there
appears to be substance in the same.
12. Though Mr. Kamar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
tried his level best to persuade this Court that in view of the
pendency of the title suit before the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat and
the decision of the said title suit is binding upon the criminal court in
view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shanti Kumar Panda (supra), yet the said submission left this
Court unimpressed, and the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the said case would not come into his assistance as the
said case is factually distinguishable from the present case and the
said proposition of law was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
while dealing with an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Notably,
in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the courts usually
consider possession of the disputed land by the parties to the
proceeding and the title has always to be adjudicated by Civil Courts
and such circumstances Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
finding of Civil Court is binding upon the parties. And that being so,
it would not advance the argument of Mr. Kamar.
Page 25 of 28
12.1. Though the allegations levelled in the FIR and also the relief
being sought for in the Title Suit, though appears to be interrelated
yet, not interdependent. The criminal court decides criminal liability
independently and may convict or acquit based on the evidence
before it. While the civil court finding only controls the civil
consequences such as who owns what, who is entitled to mesne
profits, etc. It is well settled that there is no statutory rule that a
finding in one proceeding is final and binding in the other, though a
civil court decision may be relevant evidence if it satisfies conditions
in Sections 40-43 of the Evidence Act.
12.2. Further, whether the judgement of the Civil Court, is
binding, on the Criminal Court, was dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of K.G. Premshanker Vs. Inspector of
Police and another, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 87, wherein it
has been held that the decision of the Civil Court, shall be relevant,
if conditions of any of Sections 40 to 43, are satisfied. But, it cannot
be said, that the same would be conclusive, except as provided
in Section 41. If the judgement, order or decree of Civil Court, is
relevant, as provided, under Sections 40 and 42, then Court has to
decide, to what extent, it is binding, with regard to matters decided
therein. It has also been held that, therefore, in each case, it has to
be ascertained, whether judgment, decree or order, is relevant and
if so, its effect. Further, it has been held that in the criminal case,
the prosecution was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,
by leading cogent and convincing independent evidence that the
sale deeds dated 31.01.1989 executed by Raj Kaur were the result
Page 26 of 28
of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation. On the other hand the civil
case was required to be decided on the preponderance of evidence.
Merely, on the basis of the Civil Court judgements, it could not be
conclusively held, in the criminal trial, that the sale deeds were the
result of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation. Under these
circumstances, the judgement of the Civil Court cannot be said to
be binding, on the Criminal Court, for the purpose of deciding the
guilt of the accused, in a criminal case.
12.3. Another aspect of the matter, which should not be lost sight
of that here the civil suit is yet to be disposed of. It is also not
certain till when the same will continue. It is also not certain what
would be the outcome of the said suit. In anticipating a favourable
decision in the civil suit in future, the criminal case cannot be kept
pending, not to speak of quashing the same. The right of the other
party, for speedy justice, cannot be ignored.
13. It is well settled proposition that in criminal case an FIR can
be filed by any person. Moreover, the Election Commission has
nothing to do with the criminal proceeding and the present matter is
never pertains to the Election Commission. Mr. Kamar, in later stage
of argument, had fairly admitted the same. And as such the ground
so taken in this regard becomes stale.
14. This court has also gone through the other two decisions
referred by Mr. Kamar in Pradip Kumar Kesarwani(supra) and
in Anukul Singh (supra). But, this court is unable to agree with
the submission of Mr. Kamar and the decision referred by him would
Page 27 of 28
not come into his assistance. Even applying the said proposition, to
the given facts and circumstances also this court fails to find any
justified ground to quash the proceeding, in view of the proposition
laid down in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private
Limited (supra). It is to be noted here that the decision of in
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) is a three
judges bench decision.
15. In the result, this Court finds no merit in this petition and
accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Interim order, dated
18.02.2021, staying the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 903/2016,
arising out of Jorhat P.S. Case No. 636/2016, stands vacated.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Page 28 of 28
