Gauhati High Court
Jaideep Bhuyan vs The State Of Nagaland And Anr on 7 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010005802012
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./339/2012
JAIDEEP BHUYAN
SON OF LATE DIPAK CHANDRA BHUYAN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
M/S R.L. BUILDCON PVT. LTD. HOUSE NO. 10, BYE LANE NO. 6 ZOO-
NARENGI ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR
2:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
DIMAPUR P.S. WEST POLICE STATION DIMAPUR
NAGALAND.
3:MR. J. LANU LONGCHAR
SON OF SRI K. JONGPONG PROPRIETOR OF M/S LONGCHAR
CONSTRUCTION ORIENTAL COLONY
HOUSE NO. 70
DIMAPUR
NAGALAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A BARUAH, MR.M CHETIA,MS.P BARUAH,MR.G
SOREN,MR.T H HAZARIKA,MR.S KALITA,MR.A RASHID,MS.R GOGOI,MR.T
BARUAH,MR.N P DUWARAH
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S AHMED, ,MR.M SARANIA,,,,GA, NAGALAND,,,
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER
Date : 07.03.2026
Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N. Gogoi and Mr.
M. Sarania, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Dimapur West Police Station
Case No. 34 of 2012, connected with GR Case No. 182 of 2012 registered under Section 420 of IPC.
3. The case mentioned in the FIR in a nut shell is that the informant and the petitioner entered into
the memorandum of understanding on 12.07.2009, by which it was agreed that the petitioner, who had
offered for supply of AIRCEL Mobile Phone Tower materials and other tower materials to the
informant, the informant under took to construct AIRCEL Tower at Nagaland. It was agreed in the
MOU that the aforesaid tower materials would be obtained from the manufacturer, as per demand and
requisition of the informant and the payment thereof would be made available by the informant and
transfer the requisite amount to the petitioner for delivery of the said materials.
4. As per the MOU, the petitioner further agreed to pay 22% on the purchase cost of the materials
being marginal profit to the informant and that the same would be paid within 30 days from the date of
delivery of the materials.
5. It is further alleged that for supply of the materials i.e., tower material the informant paid Rs.
5,01,500/- (five lakhs and fifteen thousand) on 14.07.2009, and Rs. 46,35,762 later to effectuate the
supply and delivery of the materials but it is alleged that the petitioner did not supply the tower
materials to the informant. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not procure the materials from
the AIRCEL and as such could not give it to the informant. However, it is further stated that on a
demand made the petitioner had paid Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lakhs in rupees) on 24.05.2010 and later Rs.
7,05,000/- (seven lakhs and fifty thousand) on 30.06.2010 totaling to Rs. 17,50,000/- (seventeen lakhs
and fifty thousand) to the informant with a balance of Rs. 76,66,653.68/- inclusive of commission. It is
also alleged that the petitioner who had given cheques was dishonored and the payment was refused by
the bank for insufficient funds. Informant further stated that the said amount remain un-paid till date
i.e., filing of the FIR and although several intimation were made but the petitioner did not pay the
Page No.# 3/4
same.
6. It was also alleged that another MOU was entered into between the parties and it was agreed upon
that the petitioner would pay the remaining outstanding balance on installment basis. However the
same has not been paid. As such the informant has lodged the FIR. The police on receipt of the FIR
lodged the case under Section 420 of the IPC.
7. Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients of the Section
420 of IPC are not attracted in this case, inasmuch as there was no prior intention that is intention from
the very inception of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the informant, not to pay
the amount to the informant. It is sine qua non for instituting an offence under Section 420 IPC that the
prior intention from the very beginning has to be shown to cheat the other party.
8. The petitioner stated that he paid some amount to the informant and after he was arrested in view
of the present FIR, he paid Rs. 22,00,000/- to the informant and that his vehicle was also transferred to
the informant. Towards payment of the outstanding amount, this position is not objected to by the
learned counsels appearing for the respondent.
9. Mr. T.H. Hazarika, further submits that a civil suit is pending between the parties in respect to the
present dispute being Civil Suit No. 1/2011 in the Court of learned District Judge at Dimapur, Nagaland
which the informant has filed for recovery of Rs. 76,67,653/- as the outstanding balance of the total
amount of Rs. 94,17,653/-. These itself shows that the petitioner has paid some amount of money
towards disbursement of the amount to the informant and on that ground the learned counsel prays for
quashment of the instant FIR. He further submits that the instant FIR reflects that the same is a civil
dispute or rather a commercial dispute between two entities, except that there is only one line that the
petitioner has cheated the informant and nothing beyond that.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has
not paid the amount to the informant to the tune of Rs. 76,67,653/- and in spite of demand being made
and several intimation being sent to the petitioner the same has not been adhered to and as such he
submits that cheating is writ large in the facts of the case. On consideration of the submissions made by
the parties more so due to the fact that a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 1/2011 is filed before the
concerned Court for recovery of the outstanding money and also due to the fact that the petitioner has
made certain payments to the informant in discharge of his liability and due to the admitted fact that
they could not procure materials from the AIRCEL to which company the petitioner has paid the
amount and as such they are unable to pay to the informant, this Court deems fit that the instant FIR
Page No.# 4/4
registered as Dimapur West Police Station Case No. 34 of 2012, registered under Section 420 of the
IPC stands quashed.
11. Petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant