Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010015792014 2025:GAU-AS:631 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./792/2014 JOGESWAR PATOWARY and 2 ORS S/O LT. BHELO RAM PATOWARY R/O FATASIL AMBARI, GHY-25, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM. 2: SMTI SABITRI PATOWARY W/O JOGESWAR PATOWARY R/O FATASIL AMBARI GHY-25 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 3: MD AZAD ALI S/O LT. FARSAD ALI R/O NAGARIK PATH/CHANDAN NAGAR BORSOJAI/BYE LANE NO. 1 PRAGATI PATH GHY-34 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS 2:DINESH CHAKRABORTY S/O LT. SAMBHU NATH CHAKRABORTY R/O SREE NAGAR ZOO ROAD GHY-5. 3:SMTI ROMI TALUKDAR W/O SRI SAMBHU NATH CHAKRABORTY R/O JAPORIGOG DISPUR GHY DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 4:SMTI JOBA CHOUDHURY W/O BHARAT CHOUDHURY R/O CHANDMARI RAJGARH Page No.# 2/5 GHY-3. DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 5:SMTI MINTU DEY W/O SRI SANJOY DEY R/O HOUSE NO. 37 NALINI BALA DEVI PATH SREE NAGAR GHY-5 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R C SAIKIA, MR.P KHATANIAR,MS.A GOGOI,MS.K SAIKIA,MS.B BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS.R BORGOHAIN(R-2, 3, 4 & 5),,MS.S KALITA(R- 2, 3, 4 & 5),MS.T SOM(R-2, 3, 4 & 5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 22.01.2025 1. None appears for the parties on call, though Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is present. 2. The present criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed for setting aside the FIR in Garchuk Police Station Case No. 314/2014 under Sections 387/420/506/34 IPC. 3. Initially, the respondents preferred a complaint before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati which was registered as Case No. 1693c/2014. Such complaint was filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to direct the Officer-in-Charge of Garchuk Police Station to register a case against commission of cognizable offences by the accused person. Page No.# 3/5 4. The grievances raised in the complaint are to the following effect:- I. The complainant purchased a plot of land measuring 7 and ½ Kathas covered by Dag No. 452, 453 of Patta No. 42 situated at village- Pamohi under Ramcharani Mouza in the district of Kamrup (Metro), Assam from one Sri Kamaleswar Rajbongshi and have been developing the land for construction of residential house. II. According to the complainant, while purchasing the land from the vendor, the accused petitioner worked as a mediator as well as broker for completing the deal of sale/purchase. III. According to the complainant, though they were initially reluctant to purchase the land, however, on the assurance of the accused person that a road will be constructed, they purchased the land. IV. Thereafter, for the purpose of providing the road, accused No. 3 demanded an amount of Rs. 80,000/- on the basis of an agreement entered into between the accused Nos. 2 and 3 for facilitating such road. Accordingly, such amount was paid and according to the complaint, it was promised that the accused No. 2 would thereafter, execute the formal sale deed. V. In the process, according to the complainant, amounts were paid in different dates for the execution of such sale deed for facilitating the construction of the road. However, after receiving the money from the complainant, all the accused persons deliberately started avoiding the complainant and according to the complainant, it was an assurance and promise and on the basis of such promise, they have received the aforesaid amount. Page No.# 4/5 VI. It is a further allegation that now the accused persons are trying to sell the entire plot of land to different third party and accordingly, they brought considerable quantity of construction material such as brick, sand, stone, iron, rod, cement etc. to the site of the said road and attempted to block it by taking into their possession of the land and they started the construction work. VII. It is also alleged that the accused persons constantly threatening the complainant not to insist for executing the sale deed in respect of the land in connection with the road and not to initiate any legal action and the earlier agreement entered for the road was also cancelled by the accused No. 3. VIII. According to the complainant, though they approached before the Garchuk Police Station with an F.I.R., but the Garchuk Police Station refused to accept and register it. IX. On the basis of such complaint, the Magistrate in exercise of its power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., directed the Garchuk Police Station to register a case. 5. There are materials on record which shows that the petitioner/ accused No. 2 namely Smti. Sabitri Patowary had in the meantime, preferred a Title Suit being Title Suit No.186/2015 along with a Misc.(J) Case No. 281/2015 seeking injunction in respect of the disputed land wherein the present petitioners were arrayed defendants/opposite parties along with some other persons. The learned trial court below had also granted injunction under its order dated 05.08.2015, directing the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land more particularly from Scheduled-B. 6. Perusal of the F.I.R., and taking all the allegations made therein to be correct, Page No.# 5/5 this Court is of the opinion that the dispute is absolutely civil in nature, relating to refusal to execute the agreement for providing the road by the accused No. 1, 2 and 3 as well as their action in cancelling the deed of agreement for such purpose. Therefore, in that context, more particularly, in view of the pendency of the civil suit and the injunction order passed therein, the available remedy for the accused is a civil remedy more particularly in absence of any material available on record to even remotely suggest commission of any offence under Section 387/420/506/34 IPC. 7. Accordingly, the present criminal stands allowed by setting aside and quashing the FIR in Garchuk Police Station Case No. 314/2014 under Sections 387/420/506/34 IPC and all consequential actions therein that might have been taken by the Garchuk Police Station. JUDGE Comparing Assistant