Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040012222024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./142/2024 Shri Tajum Thama Son of Late Tapor Thama, resident of Abo Tani Colony, Itanagar, RK Mission, PS Niti Vihar, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors through the PP of AP 2:Dr.Hage Ambing Age: 0 Occupation : Director of Medical Education T and R Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Dr. Bommi Riba Age: 0 Occupation : Additional Director of Medical Education T and R Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Dr Sopai Tawsik Age: 0 Occupation : Joint Director of Medical Education T and R Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/8 Naharlagun Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Arup Bhatttacharjee, G T Sangma,D ZIrdo Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Legal Aid Counsel,Jambey Tsering Kee BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 29.01.2026 Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. J. Tsering Kee, learned legal aid counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The instant application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 54/2022 under Sections 120B/419/420/468/471 of the IPC arising out of Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 05/2022 in respect of the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that he is serving as a Head Constable in the Arunachal Pradesh Police Battalion at BHQ, Chimpu. On 18.01.2022, respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of the Naharlagun Police Station in respect of some fake appointment orders with forged signatures of the officers of the Directorate of Medical Education, Naharlagun. The fake appointment orders were in respect of the following candidates: - i. Margam Riram Page No.# 3/8 ii. Ebom Nyodu iii. Semnik Karlo iv. Gemnya Nada v. Mejum Riram vi. Tadar Apey vii. Geben Lida 4. Upon receipt of the FIR, the case was registered as Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 05/2022 as mentioned above. 5. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was also arrested along with 6(six) others accused persons. Thereafter, after completion of the investigation, the Charge-Sheet No. 29/2022 dated 28.03.2022 was submitted against the accused persons including the petitioner before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons against the accused persons, including the petitioner. The case has been at the stage of framing of charge for the last 1 (one) year, and till date, the charge has not been framed due to the non-appearance of the prime accused, Smti. Sangeeta Bansal. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not connected in any way with the alleged offence. The prime accused, Smti. Sangeeta Bansal, is known to the petitioner, and he had transferred a certain amount of money to her account, which was a borrowed loan amount, as there was some commercial business between the petitioner and the main accused, Smti. Sangeeta Bansal. It is stated that the petitioner had nothing to do with the fake appointment letters. Page No.# 4/8 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the victims in the case as well as the co-accused's statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, and none of the statements have revealed the involvement of the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner further submits that the charge-sheet also does not reveal any incriminating material against him. 9. The learned counsel submits that in the case of Kalyan Kumar Sharma vs. State of Assam reported in 2013 (1) GLT 141, the Gauhati High Court had observed that the name of the petitioner being inserted in the charge- sheet, without collecting any materials during the investigation, the subsequent proceeding if allowed to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. As such, the proceedings were quashed and set aside. 10. Similarly, in the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that, if the proceeding against him is allowed to continue, the same would be a wastage of time, as the conviction of the petitioner is bleak basing on the materials presented by the prosecution. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the case of Videocon Industries Limited vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2016 (12) SCC 315, and also the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581. 12. Relying on the above-mentioned judgments, the learned counsel submits that a departmental proceeding had been conducted against him, and by Order No. BHQ/BN-1/DE-152/TT/2022 dated 19.09.2025, the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges, and it was stated that the charges levelled against Page No.# 5/8 him were not proved. It is stated that in the Departmental Enquiry, all the relevant witnesses were examined, and it was found that there was no documentary or digital evidence against the petitioner. The candidates who had received the fake appointment orders had also denied the involvement of the petitioner, as the fake appointment orders were not given to them by the petitioner. 13. In such a case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) and Videocon Industries Limited (supra) had held that in case of exoneration on merits, where the allegation is found to be not substantiated at all and the person is held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases. The Apex Court also held that where a person is exonerated in adjudication on technical grounds, or because no penalty was imposed, criminal prosecution can continue. But if in adjudication proceedings a clear finding is recorded that the allegations were wholly unsustainable and the person is innocent, then criminal prosecution on the same set of facts cannot be allowed to continue. 14. The learned counsel therefore submits that the yardstick would be to judge whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and where the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found to be on merit, the trial of such a person would be an abuse of process of the Court. In the present case, the exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental proceeding was not on technical grounds, but on merit, and therefore, the Page No.# 6/8 criminal prosecution against him cannot continue. 15. In view of the submission made hereinabove and the judgments relied upon, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the instant petition may be allowed and the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 54/2022 corresponding to Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 05/2022 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, may be quashed and set aside as far as the petitioner is concerned. 16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned legal aid counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 have objected to the instant application on the ground that the departmental proceeding and the criminal prosecution can be carried out simultaneously. It is also submitted that the degree of proof required in a departmental proceeding is very different from that which is required in a criminal proceeding. Moreover, the learned counsel submits that there is evidence of huge financial transactions made between the petitioner and the main accused, Smti. Sangeeta Bansal. It is also stated that there is evidence of financial transaction between the petitioner and the accused No. 3, Mr. Jogen alias Montu Saikia. As far as Section 161 of Cr.P.C statements are concerned, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the victims have not revealed any involvement of the petitioner, and the statement of the main accused, Smti. Sangeeta Bansal, has also not revealed the involvement of the petitioner. In his Section 161 of Cr.P.C statement, the petitioner has stated that the money which he had deposited in the account of the main accused was actually borrowed from close relatives and lent it to Smti. Sangeeta Bansal with higher interest rates, and he had requested her to arrange some supply orders or work orders for him. However, after a lapse of 1 (one) year, he had told her Page No.# 7/8 that since she could not obtain any work order, the entire amount should be returned to him. She requested him that she will return the borrowed amount in instalments, and if possible, she will try to help him get appointments for some unemployed relatives in the Directorate of Health Services. The statements of the accused No. 3, Mr. Jogen Saikia, have also not revealed any involvement with the present petitioner. 17. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, taking this Court through the charge-sheet, submits that as per the charge-sheet, Mr. Jogen Saikia and the petitioner had admitted before the investigating agency that they had submitted documents for 11 and 25 persons respectively to the main accused, Smti. Sangeeta Bansal. Therefore, the petitioner is also involved in this case, and it is prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed. 18. The Court has given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 19. The Court has also perused the charge-sheet and Section 161 of Cr.P.C statements of all the victims as well as the co-accused. The Court has also examined the order dated 19.09.2025, by which the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceedings. It is found that the Section 161 of Cr.P.C statements do not reveal any material against the petitioner. Even in the charge- sheet, except for a one-line statement that the petitioner admitted he had submitted documents for 25 persons to the main accused, Smti. Sangeeta Bansal, no other evidence is available against the petitioner. 20. The perusal of the order dated 19.09.2025 also reveals that the petitioner was exonerated not on technical grounds, but after considering the charges Page No.# 8/8 against him on merits. Even in the departmental proceeding, the candidates who had received the fake appointment orders were examined, and the financial transactions between Smti. Sangeeta Bansal and the petitioner were also taken into consideration. However, no documentary or digital evidence could be recovered or found during the enquiry. The candidates also denied any interaction with the petitioner in their statements during the enquiry. 21. The fact that exoneration of the petitioner in the Departmental Enquiry was made on merit also comes to the assistance of the petitioner as the criminal prosecution in G.R. Case No. 54/2022 is also on the same set of facts. 22. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, this Court finds that there is no prima facie case against the present petitioner under Sections 419/420/468/471/120B IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that further continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law. 23. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the G.R. Case No. 54/2022 corresponding to Naharalgun P.S. Case No. 05/2022 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is quashed and set aside in respect of the petitioner only. 24. With the above observations, this petition stands allowed and is disposed of. 25. Registry shall send back the trial Court records expeditiously. JUDGE Comparing Assistant