Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010241302025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1353/2025 SHRI MANAS BORTAMULY SON OF LATE GOPAL CH. BORTAMULY, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 31, S.K. BARUAH ROAD, RUKMINI NAGAR, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN - 781006 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:MR SUDHIR SINGH SON OF LALAN SINGH (INFORMANT) REPRESENTATIVE OF VIKAS FORMWORK LLP RESIDENT OF TRIANGULAR COLONY P.O. - REST CAMP P.S. - JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN - 781012 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B PRASAD, MR P J BORAH,L DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS.TWINKLE SARMA(R2),MR S PARASHAR(R2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 11.06.2026 Heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Parashar, learned Counsel representing respondent no.2 and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State representing respondent no.1. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR being Changsari P.S. Case No. 10/2025 registered under Section 318(4)/316(2) BNS. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the charge sheet submitted in the said case on 28.02.2025 and also for quashing of all consequential proceedings. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the he is the proprietor of M/s Manas Hydro Design and Construction, which deals in building and construction work. He further stated that on 14.01.2025, one FIR was lodged against him before the Changsari P.S. by one Sudhir Singh being the authorized representative of Vikas Formwork LLP, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had taken scaffolding materials from the informant's company on hire basis and that the petitioner had not paid the due bills amounting to Rs. 17 lakhs with regard to the rent for keeping this scaffolding materials at his site and that the petitioner had also not paid the accruing amount with every month with regard to the same. It was also stated in the FIR that the scaffolding materials valued at Rs. 35 lakhs was also not returned to the informant. It is further stated that the informant had tried to establish contact with the petitioner but there were no Page No.# 3/5 response. In the said FIR, the dates when the scaffolding materials were sent to the petitioner was also mentioned. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that these scaffolding materials were given back to the informant, however, the rent for keeping the said scaffolding materials were not paid but the recourse to get the payment with regard to the same lies before the Civil Court and not by way of filing an FIR. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed the agreement entered into between the parties wherein it was stipulated that rental term would be for the period as mentioned in the agreement but in the said agreement that term was not mentioned. He had also placed the stipulation made in loss and damage clause in the said agreement wherein it was stated that for any loss and damage, the lessee i.e. the petitioner will indemnify the informant against any liability. He has also placed that in case of any default made in the payment which accedes the rental value of the material equivalent to two months billing amount, the informant has the right to take back the materials at petitioner's risk and cost. Further under Clause 13.3 of the agreement, it is provided that the informant would recover the equipment as well as recover the rental amount from the petitioner. Further it is his pleaded case that the informant can recover the articles from the petitioner's site with prior notice to the petitioner. He as such submits that the FIR which is registered under Section 318(4) as well as 316(2) of BNS is not maintainable and also in view of the said agreement entered into between the parties and also in view of the fact that the informant had not taken back the articles from the petitioner's site. Page No.# 4/5 6. On the other hand, Mr. S. Parashar, learned Counsel for the informant submits that the FIR on the face of it discloses the offence committed by the petitioner to the extent that the informant was cheated and the money was misappropriated by the petitioner. He categorically states that the petitioner had not returned the scaffolding materials neither had given the rent for holding the same. 7. Considered the rival contentions of the parties. 8. It is no res integra that for quashing of an FIR, it is required to be seen that the FIR on the face of it does not disclose a cognizable offence. In the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that if the FIR along with the connected materials does not disclose a cognizable offence, or the offences registered, the same can be quashed by the High Court. However, it is seen from the contents of the instant FIR that an offence is made out, in view of the fact that the scaffolding materials were not returned as well as the rent was not paid with the further stipulation in the FIR that multiple attempts were made to contact the petitioner and visits were also made to his abandoned office which was of no avail. In the copy of the charge sheet submitted in the instant case, it is stated that according to the agreement, the materials were not return to the company worth Rs. 35 lakhs and that the rent was also not paid to the tune of Rs. 17 lakhs. Further it was stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the scaffolding materials were returned to the informant but the same was disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the informant. As such, this is not the case where the inherent power of the High Court can be exercised for quashing of the FIR as well as charge sheet and Page No.# 5/5 the consequent proceeding. 9. Petition is as such dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant