Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010249622018 2025:GAU-AS:11384 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1134/2018 AKHIL GOGOI S/O LATE BOLURAM GOGOI R/O NIZORAPARA, CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI P.S. CHANDMARI DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MR UTTAM KR. RAMCHIARY S/O LATE C.K.RAMCHIARY S.I. BOKAJAN GRPS P.O. BOKAJAN DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N N B CHOUDHURY, MR. S BORTHAKUR,MR. J ABBAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 26.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Page No.# 2/5 Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State respondents. 2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed praying for quashing the proceeding in Barpathar P.S. Case No. 140/2018 registered under Sections 120B/143/109/283/307/353 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 150/174 of the Railways Act. 3. This Court under its order dated 14.11.2018, called for the LCR while granting an interim protection. During the proceeding, it came to light that the record and the case diary of the Barpathar P.S. Case No. 140/2018, was missing. It is on record that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Dhansiri at Sarupathar under its order dated 12.02.2020 transferred the aforesaid Barpathar P.S. Case No. 140/2018 to Bokajan Govt. Railway Police Station on the prayer of Investigating Officer, for the reason that the place of occurrence is within the jurisdiction of Bokajan Govt. Railway Police Station. 4. That being the position, this Court under its order dated 28.01.2025, directed the Officer-in-Charge of Bokajan Govt. Railway Police Station to submit a status report as regards the investigation that has been carried out in the aforesaid case for the proper determination of the present criminal petition. 5. A status report was submitted which goes to show that the records are not traceable even at the Bokajan Govt. Railway Police Station and the case diary is also not available at the Bokajan Govt. Railway Police Station. Accordingly, this Court under its order dated 26.03.2025, directed the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police i.e. Superintendent of Police, Golaghat to make an enquiry. Accordingly, an enquiry has been conducted and affidavit has also been filed by the respondents. 6. The aforesaid affidavit goes to shows that, the records are missing and the Page No.# 3/5 authority has already initiated a departmental proceeding against the arraying officer. In the aforesaid backdrop, at this stage, this Court is left with no other option to look into the material available on record i.e. the FIR for determination of the present case inasmuch as on date of the record and the case diary has not been traced out, though the FIR was registered way back on 23.10.2018. 7. While taking up this present petition, it is important to note that the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, preserves the inherent powers of the High Court. In exercise of such inherent power, the High Court can quash an FIR, charge-sheet, complaint or even proceeding, if their continuation would be illegal or oppressive. Such power can be exercised, if the allegations made in the FIR/Complaint, even if it is taken at face value, donot constitute an offence; when allegations made are absurd or improbable; when civil disputes are camouflaged as criminal dispute; when proceedings are without jurisdiction and/or barred by law; when such proceeding is initiated malafide and such is a vexatious prosecution etc. 8. Taking note of the aforesaid legal position, let this Court now consider the present case. The FIR was lodged by one Debajit Deka, State Convenor, Ram Sena, Assam. The allegation levelled in the FIR discloses that on 23.10.2018, during Assam Bandh, certain acts were done by the supporters of the present petitioner and under his leadership with some other organizations, which is being condemned by the complainant in the FIR. According to the FIR, such conduct of the accused, is illegal in view of order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and therefore, the accused is required to be immediately arrested for contempt of court under Section 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and a case is required to be registered for damage of public property and robbery. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted to be correct, what it discloses is that there was an Assam Bandh called Page No.# 4/5 on 23.10.2018, however, it nowhere discloses who called such Assam Bandh. It further discloses that the certain acts were done by the supporters of the petitioner and some other persons under the leadership of the petitioner, however, the aforesaid FIR, nowhere discloses as to what is the particular offensive act. 10. The basic prayer in the FIR is for arrest for violation of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court by the accused person, though what are the Hon’ble Apex Court’s order and what violations they have committed, are not disclosed. This Court referring to the context of the FIR, can at best presume that the allegation relates to the violation of the determination of the Hon’ble Apex Court as regards giving Bandh call to be illegal and compensation in public damages. Even that be correct, there is no whispers and speculations as regards what kind of damages were caused and who called such Bandh etc. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court wanted to peruse the case diary, however, since the year 2018, the case diary is missing. 11. This Court in the aforesaid backdrop is also of the opinion that, even if the investigation is carried out as on date, it won’t bear any fruitful results at this distant day of alleged commission of the offence. Above that, even this Court applies the test of uncontroverted allegations “to be correct”, this Court is of the opinion that no prima facie case is disclosed in the present case, permitting the investigating authority to continue with the investigation that too based on such a vague FIR. It is true that, the FIR is not the encyclopedia of all the facts, however, certain basic facts should be stated disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. In the considered opinion of this Court, the FIR nowhere discloses any cognizable offence, to allow the investigating authority to proceed in the present case. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal petition is allowed by setting aside and Page No.# 5/5 quashing the proceeding in Barpathar P.S. Case No. 140/2018 registered under Sections 120B/143/109/283/307/353 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 150/174 of the Railways Act. JUDGE Comparing Assistant