Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010275502025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1576/2025 TABREEZ CHOUDHURY S/O- MATIN CHOUDHURY, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 12, NARIKALBASTI, BYE LANE 4, P.S.- GEETANAGAR, DISTRICT-KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, GUWAHATI- 781024. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:JIABUR RAHMAN S/O- USMAN ALI R/O- VILL.- KHANAJAN P.O.- KHANAJAN P.S.- NORTH-LAKHIMPUR DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78703 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T H HAZARIKA, MR M CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S BORUAH (R2),MR. K SARMA (R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA JUDGMENT Date : 17-09-2026 Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Chetia, learned cousnel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Page No.# 2/9 Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Baruah, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present criminal petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 seeking setting aside and quashing of a First Information Report [FIR] lodged by the respondent No. 2 as the information, which has been registered as North Lakhimpur Police Station Case no. 166/2025 for the offences under Sections 316[2]/ 318[4]/ 3[5] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS], 2023. 3. In the FIR lodged on 12.05.2025, the informant has inter-alia alleged commission of criminal breach of trust and cheating against the petitioner. As per the FIR, the petitioner who is an interior designer by profession, was engaged by the informant for design, interior works, etc. of a RCC building which was being constructed by the informant. As part of the agreement, the petitioner was paid an advance amount of Rs. 19,25,000/- to execute the works out of the agreed amount of Rs. 55,00,000/-. The informant has inter- alia alleged that after payment of a sum of Rs. 19,25,000/-, the petitioner only executed works to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Subsequently, another agreement was executed on 06.05.2025 in supersession of the earlier agreement whereby the contract amount was re-fixed @ Rs. 33,00,000/-. Alleging that the petitioner did not execute the works as per the subsequent Agreement dated 06.05.2025, which was to be executed within a period of two months, the informant has lodged the FIR. 4. Mr. Hazarika learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the informant had entered into an agreement for interior works and received a certain amount of money as advance out of which he had done a Page No.# 3/9 part of the work which according to the informant himself is valued at Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) and the dispute has arisen out of non- completion of the work. It is submitted that therefore, there is no element of cheating or misappropriation involved. 5. It is further submitted that the work could not be completed within time because of the reasons which have been stated in the instant criminal petition. It is stated therein that the petitioner started the works. 6. That the factual background which led to filing the impugned FIR dated 12/05/2025 is that being the proprietor of Archi Strut INN, the petitioner, on being approached by the respondent no. 2 agreed to design the exterior and interior works, except the civil works, on certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, one agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondents on 04/11/2024 incorporating the terms and conditions of the works and accordingly, certain amount was paid by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner in terms of the said agreement. As per the said agreement dated 04/11/2024, the petitioner agreed to design the interior and exterior including furniture and fixtures as well as electrical works as per given specifications mentioned in the said agreement of the residential building (Ground and first floor measuring around 4000 sq. feet) owned by the respondent no. 2. The tenure for the completion of the work was fixed tentatively within 01 year. 7. Thereafter the petitioner started the works and reasonable works were done but in due course for certain change in circumstances there was some bonafide inadvertent delay in execution of the works. The reasons being amongst others (a) Workers and labours executing the work belonged to different districts of Assam. (b) As per agreement the work was for the ground floor and first floor but subsequently on the request of the respondent, Page No.# 4/9 additional works on the terrace rooms were included for which there is extension of work in the said project, (c) The weather conditions of that locality was not suitable for the speedy work in the project, (d) Lots of civil work which includes structural changes, were carried out by the third party during execution of the work, (e) Materials were not readily available in Lakhimpur area, therefore, the same were ordered from Guwahati which incurred more time and expenses, (f) Lack of required co-operation from the respondent No. 2 in executing the project, (g) Constant changes in design were made irrelevantly by the respondent no. 2 etc. 8. That on 06/05/2025 the petitioner alongwith his manager Sri Suraj Parsi went the said place of work to inspect the work but most surprisingly, on reaching there, the petitioner found around 20-25 unknown persons waiting there with the respondent no. 2. They forcibly took the petitioner into a room of the building and illegally confined the petitioner and his manager Suraj Parsi and locked the door from the outside. The other persons were waiting outside the room guarding them. After few minutes the respondent No. 2 entered the room and threatened the petitioner and his manager with dire consequences without any reason and demanded Rs. 30,00,000/- immediately. The said persons also threatened the petitioner and his manager that if the petitioner does not pay him the said amount, the petitioner and his manager will not be allowed to leave that place in any manner. Thereafter, some other persons also came into the room armed with dao, lathi, iron rod etc. in their hand and started assaulting the manager of the petitioner and also pushed the petitioner and abused them with slang languages. They even put dao in the neck of the petitioner and threatened to issue cheque of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2. Page No.# 5/9 Having no option, in fear of death the petitioner compelled to issue total 03 nos. of cheques in favour of Jiabur Rahman such as, Cheque No. 000037 dated 06/05/2025 of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) Cheque No. 000055 dated 06/05/2025 of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lac only) and Cheque No. 000058 dated 06-05- 2025 of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Only) drawn on Bandhan Bank, Kalapahar branch, Guwahati- 781018. 9. After receipt of the said cheques they allowed the petitioner and his manager to leave that place at around 11:10 PM and immediately the petitioner returned to Guwahati at midnight. It is to be stated that prior to issuance of the aforesaid 03 cheques, Jiabur Rahman and his men forced the petitioner to sign an agreement very malafidely prepared by them wherein they inserted a clause wherein it is stated that they will keep those chques as security and the value of the work was also reduced to Rs. 33,00,000/- whereas as per the earlier agreement the value of the work was fixed at Rs. 55,00,000/- and the period of completion was fixed within 2 months instead of earlier 1 year i.e. within November, 2025. The respondent No. 2 has carried out the said act very illegally without cancelling the earlier agreement in respect to the same work. The entire process of the signing the agreement and handing over the same to him was recorded by one of the miscreants present at that place. Regarding the said incident, the petitioner filed an FIR on 09/05/2025 through online (e-complaint) vide reference no. e-COM-0525-005983, Dated 09/05/2025 against the respondent no. 2 and others narrating the entire facts. 10. The said FIR dated 09/05/2025 was subsequently registered by the North-Lakhimpur Polioce Station as North-Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 167/2025 under sections 127(2)/308(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. Page No.# 6/9 11. When the respondent came to know that the petitioner has filed a case against him, he on 12/05/2025 filed the impugned Lakhimpur P. S. Case No. 166/2025. Although the case filed by the petitioner is prior in point of time but the same was registered subsequent to the case filed by the respondent. The petitioner filed the FIR electronically/online on 09/05/2025 and on the other hand the respondent no. 2 filed the same on 12/05/2025 as mentioned above. 12. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at an earlier point of time, the petitioner lodged an FIR against the informant on 09.05.2025 and the said FIR was registered as North Lakhimpur Police Station Case no. 167/2025 under Sections 127[2]/ 308[3]/ 3[5] of the BNS, 2023 and the FIR lodged by the informant is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner. 13. The petitioner according to learned counsel had never denied to complete the work but was prevented by circumstances from completing the same. Therefore the dispute is purely of a civil nature and accordingly, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following decisions:- (1) Binod Kumar and others-versus- State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) SCC 663.(2) M/s. Indian Oil Corporation-versus- M/s. N.E.P.C. India Limited, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 and (3) Joideep Bhuyan – versus- the State of Nagaland and another, (Crl. Pet. 339/2012, Gauhati High Court). 14 Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 i.e. the private respondent submitted that civil and criminal elements can coexist and hence, both civil and criminal proceedings can be maintained simultaneously and if on the face of the complaint, ingredients of a criminal offense are revealed, then no Page No.# 7/9 interference is called for only because of a civil remedy may also be available. 15. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that it admittedly, the petitioner had taken the money and did not return the same and the offence of cheating as well as criminal misappropriation is made out against the petitioner and moreover, the police after investigation has filed the charge sheet and therefore, the criminal proceedings must be allowed to run its own course. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in (1) State of Haryana and others- versus- Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, (2) Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited –versus- State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors reported in (2021) 5 SCC 795 and Md. Abdul Salam Vs. Jiflul Haque, reported in 1995 (3), GLT 566. 17. The learned additional P.P. submits that the petitioner had lodged his FIR against the informant, after he had entered into a second agreement, which shows his criminal intention to cheat. 18. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same is the counter blast of the FIR lodged by the petitioner. The Apex Court has held in Md. Wazid Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 in a manner that ingredients of the alleged offense are clearly revealed and therefore, the courts while dealing with an application for quashing are required to closely scrutinize the case in its entirety and read between the lines with due care and circumspection so as to find out as to whether there is ground for proceeding against the petitioner. Page No.# 8/9 19. Perusal of the FIR would show that the informant had clearly stated therein that the accused petitioner has a firm in the name and style of “Archi Strut INN” and the informant and the accused had voluntarily entered into an agreement for the interior works as stated in the FIR and he also executed work the quantum of which was valued at Rs. 4,00,000/- by the informant himself. The crux of the allegations made in the FIR is that the petitioner failed to perform or complete the remaining part of the work. Admittedly also, the petitioner himself appeared in Lakhimpur and voluntarily executed another agreement on 6/5/2025 and agreed to start the work from where it was left and and the value of the work was also revised to Rs. 33,00,000/- in place of the initial value of Rs. 55,00,000/- lakhs. 20. Therefore, the grievances of the informant are that the petitioner failed to complete the work and also did not return the remaining part of the amount advanced to the petitioner. There is, however, no material in the FIR to show that the petitioner intended to cheat the informant from the very inception i.e. is from the time of the execution of the original contract agreement or even the subsequent one and and it was only after the petitioner himself lodged the FIR that the informant of the present case/ respondent had lodged the present FIR. 21. In other words, had the petitioner himself not lodged the FIR, and then the FIR of the instant case also perhaps would not have come into existence. It only appears to be the opinion of the informant that the petitioner had the intention to cheat and misappropriate his money. In this regard, what does not escape notice is that as per the contents of the FIR itself, consequent to the fresh agreement executed on 06.05.2025, the petitioner was required to complete the work by 10.07.2025, but the informant lodged the FIR on 12.05.2025 itself i.e. is long before the period stipulated for completion of the Page No.# 9/9 work. Therefore, viewed from that angle, the FIR lodged by the present informant itself appears premature as far as the allegations of cheating and misappropriation are concerned. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the dispute appears to be purely of a civil nature and under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the law. 22. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned proceedings in so and so case North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 166/2025 stand quashed. It is open for the informant/ respondent No. 2 to avail of other remedies in law in case the petitioner fails to execute the work in question. 23. The petition stands allowed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant