Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010168022026 2026:GAU-AS:12355 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1144/2026 DR SHILPI RANI BARMAN WIFE OF DR. DIPANKAR DEB RESIDENT OF UDHARBOND, P.S. UDHARBOND, DISTRICT CACHAR, ASSAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SANTOOR APARTMENT6TH MILE KHANAPARA, DISTRICT KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA, POOJA ROY,L DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 27.08.2026 Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Malakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/5 2. By this application filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the PRC Case No. 1871/2020 as well as the charge-sheet dated 29.07.2020. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent of Silchar Medical College and Hospital during the relevant period, i.e., from 2015 to 2018. An FIR was lodged on 5 January 2018 by the Superintendent of Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar, Assam, before the Officer-in-Charge, Silchar Sadar Police Station, stating, inter alia, that during the audit conducted with regard to the accounts of the Hospital Management Society, Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar, Assam, it came to light that a huge amount of money had been misappropriated during the said period in respect of cash collection, cash disbursement, as well as bank deposits. 4. It was further revealed in the said FIR that an in-house inquiry had been conducted, wherein gross anomalies were detected with regard to the purchase of food and other materials and also the distribution of food amongst the patients of Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar, Assam. Upon finding the said anomalies, the higher authority of the said hospital decided to lodge the ejahar, and accordingly, the ejahar was lodged. On receipt of the ejahar, the police registered the case as Silchar Police Station Case No. 40/2019 under Sections 420/409/34 of the IPC. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that, subsequent to the said ejahar, another ejahar was lodged on 17.04.2019 by the new incumbent in the post of Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent of Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar, Assam, stating, inter alia, that during the period from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, a report was submitted by the Director of Financial Inspections, Assam, wherein it was revealed that the then Superintendent of Silchar Medical Page No.# 3/5 College and Hospital, Silchar, Assam, namely, Dr. A.S. Baishya, was involved in gross financial irregularities and anomalies. 6. On receipt of the said ejahar, another case was registered as Silchar Police Station Case No. 1267/2019 under Sections 420/409 of the IPC. The police conducted an investigation in respect of both the cases and, by amalgamating the same, finally submitted the charge-sheet on 29.07.2020, arraying seven (7) accused persons and charging them under Sections 420/409/34 of the IPC. 7. Mr. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in both the First Information Reports, there is no allegation against the petitioner, who was working during the said period as the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent of Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar, Assam. 8. He submits that, in fact, in the second ejahar, the allegations were against the Superintendent-cum-Member Secretary of Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar, Assam, namely, Dr. Anindya Sundar Baishya. He, however, submits that during the course of investigation, the name of the petitioner was included by the Investigating Officer, and she was arrayed as an accused in the charge-sheet. He further submits that no allegation was made against the petitioner either in the FIRs referred to above or in the charge-sheet. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the inquiry report, wherein there is not an iota of allegation against the present petitioner. He submits that there was only a single line in the said inquiry report stating that appropriate action should be taken against the concerned officials for their lack of supervision/negligence in the discharge of their duties. He, however, by placing reliance upon the Scheme of Delegation of Hospital Autonomy, submits that under the said scheme, the Member Secretary is made responsible for all Page No.# 4/5 legal correspondence and matters of the Society. As such, he submits that there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner in respect of the anomalies that were detected. She, being the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent of the Hospital, no proceeding should, therefore, be initiated against her. 10. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, submits that the petitioner, being the Principal and Chief Superintendent of the Hospital, was responsible for the overall supervision of the entire hospital, and every matter was required to be looked into by her for the smooth functioning of the said hospital. He further submits that the offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust by a Government servant, as well as common intention under Sections 420/409/34 of the IPC, respectively, were charged in the present case by the Investigating Officer. He also submits that the question of obtaining prosecution sanction in respect of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the finding that the alleged misconduct could not be said to have been committed in the discharge of official duty. 11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have carefully gone through the records. It is specifically stated in the first FIR that an in-house inquiry was conducted and that gross anomalies were detected with regard to certain functions undertaken in the hospital. On a bare perusal of the in-house inquiry report, it is seen that no allegation was made against the petitioner. 12. In the said report, an inquiry was also conducted against the petitioner, as she was arrayed as Incumbent No. 1 therein. The period considered was from 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2018. At the time when the inquiry was conducted, Page No.# 5/5 the petitioner was continuing as the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent as well as the Chairman of the Hospital. She had been functioning in the said capacity since 1 September 2011. During the said inquiry, financial anomalies were considered with respect to different subjects. However, in respect of each of the subjects, it was nowhere stated that the petitioner was involved in the anomalies detected. Other officials of Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar, Assam, were found to have been involved in the anomalies, but not the petitioner. The anomalies were to the extent of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 28,35,745/-, which was directed to be recovered from the delinquent persons. 13. In the charge-sheet submitted on 29.07.2020, similarly, no allegation was made against the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent-cum-Chairman of the Hospital, i.e., the petitioner. In the charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer has simply arrayed the petitioner as an accused person, without there being any material to substantiate her inclusion as an accused. 14. It is also noticed that cognizance was taken against the petitioner and others by the learned Court below. In view of the findings mentioned above, the charge-sheet, being Charge-Sheet No. 386 dated 29.07.2020, is hereby quashed qua the petitioner. The subsequent orders passed in PRC Case No. 1871/2020 are also quashed qua the petitioner. However, it is made clear that if, during the course of the trial, any material is found against the petitioner, the learned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. 15. This criminal petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant