Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010123462024 2025:GAU-AS:17505 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./712/2024 VIKRANT JAISWAL @ PAPU JAISWAL S/O SRI SHIV SHANKAR JAISWAL, R/O JAISWAL MOTORS, BARRACKPORE, SHYAM NAGAR WEST GOSH PARA ROAD, PINCOL BABU QUARTER-70, LANDMARK NEAR ICHAPUR PETROL PUMP, KOLKATA-743133 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:AJIT DEY S/O NARAYAN DEY R/O LOKHOWJAN TE P.O.-LOKHOWAJAN P.S.-BOKAKHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM-78561 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR GAURAV R DUTTA, MS K BHATTACHARYYA,MR A R BAROOAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S BANIK (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 17.12.2025 Heard Mr. G. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 as well as Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent. 2. The instant criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973, by the petitioner, praying for quashing of the C.R. Case No. 22/2022, pending before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bokaghat, wherein, the cognizance of offence under section 420 has been taken by the learned Magistrate against the present petitioner and the processes were issued against him. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had entered into a business transaction with the respondent no. 2 and there was discussion over telephone regarding purchase of a Santro (Hyundai) GLS MET car bearing Registration No. WB-02Z-5215, which was agreed to be provided to the complaint/respondent by the present petitioner at an agreed amount of Rs. 90,000/- and in this regard an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the respondent no. 2 to the present petitioner as an advance for the said transaction. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner failed to deliver the said car or repay back the advance amount due to the fact that the respondent no. 2 had sought for Rs. 20,000/- more because of the fact that the petitioner could not deliver the said vehicle. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the whole issue and Page No.# 3/4 transaction is of civil nature and therefore, the learned SDJM (M) Bokaghat, ought not to have taken cognizance in the instant case and should have rejected the FIR at the threshold. In view of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of cognizance taken by the learned SDJM (M), Bokaghat, vide it’s order dated 25.08.2022 is not as per the law and hence, liable to be set aside and quashed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 submits that admittedly, the petitioner had been paid Rs. 50,000/- by the respondent no. 2 which has not been returned to the respondent no. 2 as yet and, the fact of his admission of liability is apparent from the Ground No. ‘D’ of Page-15 of the petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that since the petitioner has admitted his liability of returning the amount to the respondent no. 2, the instant petition is misconceived with a prayer to quash the proceeding before the learned SDJM (M), Bokaghat. Therefore, he submits that the instant petition is nothing but a delay tactic and the same can be easily resolved by the petitioner before the Trial Court by appearing before the Trial Court by the petitioner. 6. This Court has gone through the materials brought before this Court as well as heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. Having found no materials as such to interfere in the proceeding before the learned SDJM (M), Bokaghat, this instant criminal petition is hereby rejected. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the instant criminal petition is disposed of as dismissed. Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant