Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010019362015 2026:GAU-AS:12815 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./646/2015 BIJU DUTTA S/O SRI DHANI RAM DUTTA R/O ARAVALLA PATH, TARAJAN, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS BABULAL SANKHALA S/O SRI BHANWARLAL SANKHALA PROPRIETOR OF ENGINEERS ENTERPRISE, NEAR III RAILWAY CROSSING RAJABARI, JORHAT- 14, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D BARUAH, MS.P HANDIQUE Advocate for the Respondent : MS.R BEGUM, MS.M GOGOI,MR.P KATAKI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 03.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, arrayed as an accused, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Page No.# 2/5 seeking quashing of the complaint case registered as CR Case No. 335/2013, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jorhat. 3. I have considered the materials placed on record, including the complaint, the status report submitted by the police, the complainant's objection to the acceptance of the final report, and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in Jorhat PS Case No. 352/2009, arising from CR Case No. 285/2009, and in the subsequent impugned complaint case registered as CR No. 335/2013. 5. The genesis of the dispute is that the complainant and the petitioner were admittedly known to each other and were business associates/close friends. According to the complainant himself, certain bank drafts were handed over to the petitioner in connection with the procurement of contract works. Arising out of the dispute in the contract, the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, against the petitioner and two others under Sections 420/406/506 IPC on 17.06.2009. 6. From the said complaint, it is also disclosed that the complainant had approached the Jorhat Police, but the police refused to entertain his complaint, and for that reason, he approached the learned CJM by filing the complaint, which was registered as CR Case No. 179/2009. The learned Magistrate, under its order dated 29.07.2009, directed the Officer- in-Charge, Jorhat Police Station, to register a case, investigate, and submit a final report. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, Jorhat Police registered Jorhat PS Case No. 352/2009 under Sections 420/406/506 IPC on 04.08.2009. 7. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate also sought a status report from the investigating officer. It is borne out from the status report that, during the investigation, the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner returned Rs 90,000/- to the complainant, and the balance amount was the subject of a dispute between the parties. The investigating agency also recorded that there was no documentary evidence of the alleged cash payment of Rs 2,42,000/-, and no material had emerged to substantiate the allegation under Sections 420/406/506 IPC. Accordingly, the investigating authority filed a closure report. 8. When the investigation was going on, the respondent filed another complaint petition registered as CR No. 285/2009 before the learned CJM, Jorhat, on 22.10.2009, inter alia, praying for issuance of notice to the Officer-in- Charge of Jorhat Police Station to show cause as to why appropriate direction would not be issued for proper investigation of the case. 9. Based on the report submitted by Jorhat Police and taking note of the earlier CR case No. 179/2009, the learned Magistrate, under its order dated 01.12.2009, dismissed CR case No. 285/2009, holding that two cases for the same occurrence cannot run concurrently. 10. The subsequent protest or objection of the complainant filed against the closure of the investigation essentially reiterates the grievance that the money paid by him was not fully returned and questions the manner in which the investigation was conducted. 11. Even if all the allegations contained in the aforesaid complaints are accepted in their entirety, they disclosed at their highest a dispute arising out of a business/contractual transaction and a failure to return the entire amount claimed by the complainant. 12. For constituting an offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the dishonest or fraudulent intention must exist at the inception of the transaction. Mere subsequent failure to fulfill a promise or failure to repay money out of a commercial transaction without material indication of such a dishonest intention from the beginning does not constitute cheating. Page No.# 4/5 13. Likewise, an allegation of criminal breach of trust requires the essential elements of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property so entrusted. 14. The materials on record do not disclose the foundational ingredients of either offense. The allegation under Section 506 IPC also does not disclose a legally sustainable case. The particulars of any specific threat intended to cause alarm so as to constitute criminal intimidation are not present. 15. Another significant circumstance is that the same underlying transaction had previously been entrusted to the police, investigated, and resulted in the submission of the final report. The subsequent complaint/protest petition cannot merely, by reiterating the same allegation, convert what is essentially a monetary/business dispute into a criminal prosecution in the absence of material constituting the alleged offenses. 16. The principle governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled. The court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence, but where the allegations, taken at their face value, along with unimpeachable material on record, do not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offenses, or where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court, interference is warranted. 17. At the same time, a dispute arising out of a commercial/business transaction cannot be permitted to acquire a criminal complexion merely because a monetary claim or dispute remains between the parties. The requirement of culpable dishonest intention at the inception is material to an allegation of cheating, whereas criminal breach of trust requires the elements of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation/conversion. 18. In the present case, even if the allegations are taken at their highest, the material placed before the court does not disclose such ingredients. On the Page No.# 5/5 contrary, the admitted background of a business transaction, the subsequent course of events, the return of a substantial amount, the absence of documentary evidence supporting the alleged cash payment, and, significantly, the earlier investigation and closure in respect of the same occurrence render the continuation of the present criminal proceeding oppressive and an abuse of the process of law. 19. The law also does not permit successive criminal proceedings by the same complainant against the same accused concerning the same occurrence merely by reiterating or improving upon earlier allegations. 20. Accordingly, this court is satisfied that the present case warrants the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings arising out of CR case No. 335/2013 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jorhat, are hereby quashed and set aside. JUDGE Comparing Assistant