Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010240152024 2025:GAU-AS:11817 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1497/2024 ABDUL RAJAK LASKAR AND ANR S/O MOIN UDDIN LASKAR R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN, W/NO. 2, P.S.HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 2: PALLABI DAS LASKAR W/O ABDUL RAJAK LASKAR R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN W/NO. 2 P.S.HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSA VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LD. PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM 2:SMT. SHILPI DAS W/O ARUN KUMAR DAS R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD NO. 7 NUTANPARA P.O.AND P.S. LAKSHMISAHAR DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : S AHMED, MS A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. T DEURI (R-2),MR. H I CHOUDHURY (R-2) -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA Page No.# 2/6 01.09.2025 ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Addl. PP for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. The instant application has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing of FIR and subsequent Charge Sheet in connection with Hailakandi P.S. Case No.117/2024 under Sections 120(B)/420/406 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR was lodged on 03.05.2024 alleging inter alia that the Accused Nos. 1 & 2 are husband and wife and the Informant was acquainted with the accused persons being in relation due to marriage in families; that the Accused persons visited the house of the informant on 05.08.2021 and intimated her that though the Accused No.1 had been approved for a license for Bar cum Restaurant by the Excise Department, due to lack of money for deposit and other requirements, they were unable to start the business; that the accused persons invited investments from the Informant and her husband; that on finding the offer suitable, the parties agreed to work together; that the Accused persons with their fraudulent acts, have embezzled Rs.26,50,000/- from the Informant and her husband. In view of the aforesaid promise, it is alleged that certain cheques, namely, Cheque No.000013 dated 11.08.2021 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs), Cheque No.000014 dated 17.08.2021 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, Cheque No.000015 dated 26.08.2021 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and a cash of Rs.1,50,000/- were taken from the informant Page No.# 3/6 and Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs) from the husband of the informant, thereby totaling to a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Thousand) was in fact received by the accused No. 1 and promised that the investment so made will be returned by way of profit; that thereafter, one deed of agreement was signed on 22.10.2021 between the parties laying down various terms and conditions as detailed in the partnership deed; that in the deed of agreement, it was alleged, that an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs) was shown to be received from the informant and her husband but there was no mention about Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Thousand) that has already been received by the accused persons; that it was alleged that the accused persons convinced the informant that as far as that amount was concerned that would remain as a verbal agreement; that it was also alleged that for few months, the informant would not be paid any money by the accused persons; that the Accused persons did not pay any returns as promised from the profit; the informant came to know about bringing of a new partner by the Accused persons; that suddenly informant and her husband received a legal notice dated 25.04.2024 stating that out of 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs), Rs. 11,49,000/- (Rupees Eleven Forty Nine Thousand) was due to the Accused persons from the petitioner and her husband. Being felt cheated, the informant filed the aforesaid FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Hailakandi Police Station, Hailakandi. 4. After registration of the FIR, the Charge Sheet was filed by the Investigating Authorities of Hailakandi Police Station before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi under Section 120 (B)/420/406 IPC and the present case is at the stage of appearance of the accused persons. Page No.# 4/6 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a false FIR has been filed by the Informant due to the legal notice that has been served on the Informant and her husband by the accused petitioners. He submits that, in fact, the accused petitioners wanted to close down the Bar cum Restaurant and therefore, initially a proposal was given to the informant for buying of the same, however, the informant did not show any interest in buying the same. A verbal agreement was made with a third party for the purchase of aforesaid Bar cum Restaurant but later on, the informant showed some interest in buying of the same and therefore, he cancelled the earlier agreement with the third party for the sale and purchase of the Bar cum Restaurant. He submits that though the informant, in fact, showed interest, later on, she refused to keep the promise and therefore, the Accused Persons suffered loss. 6. In view of the aforesaid position, the accused persons left with no option, had to send a legal notice to the Informant and her husband for recovery of Rs.11,89,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand) in dissolving of the partnership. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the above case is of civil in nature, this Court may not entertain such civil dispute under the garb of a criminal case. 7. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the proceeding pending before the Trial Court may be set aside and quashed. 8. Per contra Mr. Deuri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that this is prima facie a case of criminal nature. The element of cheating and fraud are easily discernable from the FIR and Charge Sheet. He submits that the case of K. Jagadish-vs-Udaya Kumar G.S. and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 552 is squarely applicable to the Page No.# 5/6 instant case in principle. He specifically relied to paragraphs 8 to 14 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case, he submits that even if the civil remedy is available for a party to the dispute, aggrieved party is not barred from initiating a criminal case; and police, after investigation, has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused persons under Section 120(B)/420/406 IPC. He further submits that the case is at an initial stage and if the accused petitioners have any case, they can always defend their case before the Trial Court. Therefore, he submits, this is a case wherein this Court may not interfere with the criminal proceeding pending before the Trial Court. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the Charge Sheet as well as the documents that have been annexed to the instant application, this Court finds it relevant to take into account the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pratibha Rani-vs- Suraj Kumar, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 370, the relevant paragraph i.e. Paragraph 21 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “21…There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the state for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite Page No.# 6/6 different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken as no offence is committed to override and distort the real inent of the law. 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid para, makes it clear that two reliefs are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive. 12. Perused the relevant materials of TCR. 13. This Court further taking into the account the case of R. Kalyani- vs-Janak C. Mehta, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the principles concerning interferences under Section 482 (528 BNSS) Cr.P.C, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant matter does not inspire such merit that this Court may quash entire proceedings pending before the learned CJM, Hailakandi. In view of the aforesaid observations, this instant petition is rejected, as dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant