Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010228042014 2025:GAU-AS:14512 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1024/2014 DR. CHENIRAM DUTTA S/O LT. GOPAL CHANDRA DUTTA R/O VILL- CHARIGAON, P.S. JORHAT P.O. BAHONA, DIST. JORHAT,ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR ASSAM 2:DR. PRASANNA KUMAR DUTTA PRINCIPAL and SECRETARY GOVERNING BODY BAHANA COLLEGE JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BORTHAKUR, MS. P BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P MAHANTA, ,,,PP, ASSAM,MS. P SAHARIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 28-10-2025 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, Page No.# 2/10 learned Additional. P.P. Assam, appearing for the State/ respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been instituted by the petitioner, herein, praying for quashing of the charge-sheet No. 135/2013 dated 13-03-2013 laid by the police in the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 2312/2002 under Section 409 IPC, presently pending, against the petitioner, before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jorhat. 3. The facts, in brief, requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under. The petitioner had held the post of Principal of the Bahona College, Jorhat, w.e.f. 31-07-2004 to 21-05-2010. The petitioner had retired from his services on reaching the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30-09-2010. After the superannuation of the petitioner from the College, on a scrutiny made with records of the College, it was found that the petitioner was involved in the commission of large scale financial irregularities during his tenure as the Principal of the College. Departmental proceedings were instituted against the petitioner, herein, and the enquiry report submitted therein had brought to the forefront commission of gross negligence, diversion of College fund and misappropriation of College funds to the extent of Rs. 37,31,706/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred Six). The petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service which was approved by the Directorate of Higher Education, Assam. The said materials having come on record, the incumbent in the office of the Principal, Bahona College lodged an FIR on 08-12-2012 before the Officer-in-Charge, Jorhat Police Station praying for institution of criminal proceeding Page No.# 3/10 against the petitioner, herein. The police on receipt of the same had registered the same as Jorhat P.S. Case No. 1251/2012 under Section 409 IPC. 4. On conclusion of the investigation in the matter, basing on the materials coming on record, the police lodged charge-sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 135/2013 dated 13-03- 2013 in G.R. Case No. 2312/2012, presently pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jorhat. 5. The petitioner under the above-noted fact situation has instituted the present proceeding praying for quashing of the said charge-sheet along with the said proceeding in G.R. Case No. 2312/2012. 6. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the present criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner is based on the materials coming on record in the departmental proceeding instituted with regard to the same allegations against the petitioner, herein. He submits that the FIR so lodged in the matter was motivated and was filed with the sole purpose of damaging the petitioner’s image and reputation. Mr. Borthakur has submitted that the departmental proceedings were instituted against him solely basing on the initiative taken in the matter by 02 (two) faculties of the College who had some personal score to settle with the petitioner. He submits that it is on the basis of the statement adduced before the police by the said two faculty members that the police proceeded to lay the charge-sheet against the petitioner in the matter. 7. Mr. Borthakur by taking this Court through the charge-sheet has submitted that the Page No.# 4/10 same only reflects broad allegations of materials coming on record establishing commission of offence by the petitioner, herein, under Section 409 IPC, without there being any specific allegation being leveled against the petitioner, herein. Mr. Borthakur has further submitted that the petitioner has already instituted a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 129/2013, challenging the adverse findings returned against him in the departmental proceeding, along with the penalty imposed upon him, therein, which is presently pending before this Court. He submits that the present criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner being an off shot of the materials coming on record in the departmental proceeding, the present criminal proceeding would be required to be kept in abeyance till this Court finally disposes of the W.P.(C) No. 129/2013. Mr. Borthakur submits that in the event this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner is required to be permitted to be taken forward, the same would be an abuse of the process of this Court and accordingly prays that this Court would be pleased to quash the proceeding impugned in the present petition. 8. Per contra, Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State submits that the investigation as carried out in the matter in pursuance to lodging of the FIR on 08-12-2012 by the police having brought on record materials highlighting involvement of the petitioner, herein, in misappropriation of College funds and also with regard to the actions taken by him in spending the College funds without the approval of the Governing Body of the College, prima-facie, materials having come on record indicating commission of offence under Section 409 IPC by the petitioner, herein, the charge-sheet submitted in the matter by the police would not mandate interference from this Court. Page No.# 5/10 9. Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 by referring to the materials available on record including the disclosure made from the scanned copy of the Trial Court records has submitted that the petitioner during his tenure as the Principal of the College had in a systematic manner resorted to misappropriation of College funds. He has highlighted that in the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner, materials had come on record with regard to the misuse of powers vested upon the petitioner as the Principal of the College. Mr. Mahanta has further submitted that the petitioner, herein, to cover up the misappropriation of the College funds made by him, had not maintained the accounts of the College in the manner required. Mr. Mahanta has submitted that the FIR as submitted in the matter was so submitted after the materials with regard to commission of irregularities by the petitioner, herein, during his tenure as the Principal of the College had come to the forefront. Mr. Mahanta submits that the police upon lodging of the FIR by the College authority having carried out due and proper investigation and laid charge-sheet against the petitioner and the same also having demonstrated commission of offence under the provision of Section 409 IPC, this Court would be pleased not to interfere with the charge-sheet and permit the proceeding involved, to be taken to its logical conclusion. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. This Court has also perused the scanned copy of the trial court’s records, as placed along with the records of the present matter. 11. As noticed, hereinabove, in pursuance to the materials coming on record in the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner with regard to the commission Page No.# 6/10 of misconduct alleged against him, therein, during his tenure as the Principal of the College, the incumbent in the office of the Principal of the College had lodged an FIR on 08-12-2012. The said FIR was registered under Section 409 IPC. The police thereafter carried out a detail investigation in the matter and on conclusion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 135/2013 dated 13-03-2013 in G.R. Case No. 2312/2012 under Section 409 IPC. The said charge-sheet as well as the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 2312/2012 being under challenge in the present proceeding, this Court has perused the materials brought on record in the said charge-sheet. This Court on examination of the said charge-sheet finds that, therein, materials are available indicating submission of fake bills by the petitioner and misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 37,31,706/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred Six) by the petitioner. The said charge-sheet also brings to the forefront the misuse of funds of the College by the petitioner during his tenure as the Principal of the College. The charge- sheet also reveals that the petitioner without prior approval of the Governing Body and/or without involving the Members of the Construction Committee had proceed with the construction activities in the College and submitted utilization certificates which is projected to not confirm with the actual work done on the ground. It is also brought on record in the charge-sheet that the petitioner was involved in carrying out various fake construction activities without involving the Governing Body of the College and the Construction Committee. The charge-sheet also brings to the forefront non maintenance of the accounts of the College by the petitioner, herein, during his tenure as the Principal of the College and also utilization of several cash books and also release of funds to firms Page No.# 7/10 and contractors without proper declaration of the same in the cash book. The charge- sheet also alleges that the petitioner during his tenure as the Principal of the College had submitted fake vouchers regarding construction works carried out in the College when, in fact, such construction was carried out in his own residence by utilizing the funds of the College. 12. Basing on the materials coming on record the charge-sheet was laid and, therein, it was highlighted that the materials establishes commission of offence by the petitioner, herein, under Section 409 IPC. On receipt of the said charge-sheet, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25-09-2014 had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 406 IPC and had issued summons to the petitioner, herein. The present proceeding having been instituted and the same having been brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court had on 19-12-2014 adjourned the matter and fixed 07- 01-2015 for charge hearing. However, this Court vide order dated 19-12-2014, having stayed further proceeding in the G.R. Case No. 2312/2012, the charge in the matter could not be framed by the learned Trial Court. Subsequently, vide order dated 31-05-2016, the present proceeding being pending before this Court and the interim order being continued, the learned Trial Court had stayed further proceeding in the matter, until further orders. 13. This Court on perusal of the uncontroverted allegation available in the charge-sheet is of the considered view that the same, prima facie, disclose commission of an offence by the petitioner. It is settled position of law that for the purpose of considering a challenge to a charge-sheet, this Court is not called upon to examine the defence of the accused Page No.# 8/10 and also is not required to ascertain as to whether the case would end in conviction or not. A prima facie, case having been made out against the petitioner, herein, in the charge-sheet, this Court is of the considered view that the contention raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding would not mandate a consideration at this stage for the purpose of answering the issue arising in the present proceeding. The materials brought on record having disclosed commission of financial irregularities by the petitioner during his tenure as the Principal of the College, this Court is of the considered view that the same would now be required to be considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. 14. It is also settled position of law that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. This Court does not find the allegations involved in the matter against the petitioner to be absurd and inherently improbable. Given the nature of the allegations involved in the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the same having demonstrated a prima facie case of commission of offence involved, by the petitioner, herein, this Court restrains from exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings instituted against the petitioner, herein. No special circumstances have also been highlighted by the learned counsel requiring this Court to interfere in the matter and quash the charge-sheet as laid by the police in the matter against the petitioner. 15. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would consider the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal proceeding now instituted against the petitioner being in pursuance to the materials coming on record in the departmental Page No.# 9/10 proceeding instituted against him, the same should await the decision from this Court in W.P.(C) No. 129/2013. The said contention is being considered only to be rejected. The materials coming on record during the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner, herein, having disclosed commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioner, herein, the College authorities were within their rights to lodge an FIR against the petitioner in the matter. The FIR having been lodged, it is seen that an independent investigation into the allegations was carried out by the police and thereafter, only the charge-sheet in the matter came to be laid against the petitioner, herein. The allegations now forming the basis of the charge-sheet against the petitioner, would be permissible to be contested by the petitioner during the conduct of the criminal proceeding pending against him. 16. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the charge-sheet having disclosed commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner, herein, the same cannot be quashed. The interim direction passed by this Court vide order dated 19-12-2014 stands vacated. The learned Trial Court would now proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law and would not be swayed by the observations made by this Court, hereinabove, in the present order, which observation has been made only for the purpose of considering the challenge to the charge-sheet presented by the petitioner in the present proceeding. 17. With the above observation and directions, the present criminal petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. Page No.# 10/10 JUDGE Comparing Assistant