Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010185132026 2026:GAU-AS:13155 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1207/2026 SRI JITUMONI BARMAN AND ANR C/O DHARMESWAR BARMAN, SHIVANAGAR, 2 NO. MATHGHARIA, NOONMATI, P.S.- NOONMATI, DISTRICT KAMRUP , ASSAM, PIN-781020 2: SRI PRASENJIT MITRA C/O- MANOJ MITRA R/O- MAA SARADA PATH KAHILIPARA COLONY P.O.- BINOVANAGAR DISTRICT KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781018 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P. P. ASSAM 2:MUSHAHIDUR RAHMAN S/O MD. AKHMAT ALI R/O LOHARKATHA MUKALMUA P.S. MUKALMUA DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-78112 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T H HAZARIKA, MR. K ISLAM,MR A RASHID,MR M CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 09.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP appearing for the State of Assam. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioners have prayed for quashing of Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 263 of 2025 registered under Sections 316(2)/318(2) of the BNS, 2023. The petitioners have also challenged the subsequent proceedings initiated in connection with the said case. 3. The case of the petitioners is that an FIR was lodged on 03.12.2025 by one Mushahidur Rahman before the Officer-in-Charge of Mukalmua Police Station stating inter alia that on 02.12.2025 i.e. a day prior thereto at about 6:12 p.m. he received a call from petitioner No. 1 who was an employee of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Guwahati Branch. It was alleged in the said FIR that by misrepresentation petitioner No. 1 obtained an OTP relating to the RBI CMS portal from the informant stating that the same was required for the purpose of verification of a loan top-up process. It was further alleged by the informant that on the next day, i.e. 03.12.2025, at about 11:02 p.m. he received an SMS informing him that the complaint lodged by him before the RBI had been closed. He submits that he had never withdrawn the said complaint and was unaware as to how the said complaint came to be closed. He accordingly lodged a complaint before the police alleging cyber fraud, pursuant to which the FIR came to be registered. On receipt of the FIR, the Page No.# 3/6 police registered the case for the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 316(2) and 318(2) of the BNS respectively. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the ingredients of the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust are not made out from the allegations contained in the FIR. He submits that the informant had applied for a loan from the finance company, namely, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited and had subsequently requested for a loan top-up. He submits that petitioner No. 1 was the Manager of the said finance company. 5. The learned counsel however submits that the informant was not granted the top-up loan by the said finance company and aggrieved thereby he lodged a complaint before the RBI. He submits that after the said complaint was lodged petitioner No. 1 during the process of processing the top-up loan for the informant had asked for the OTP generated through the RBI CMS portal which was provided by the informant. It is submitted that unless the complaint lodged by the informant was closed the process of verification for the top-up loan could not proceed. As such, petitioner No. 1 upon obtaining the said OTP had in fact initiated the process for sanctioning the top-up loan in favour of the informant. He submits that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 318 and 316 of the BNS are not made out from the allegations contained in the said FIR and as such he prays for quashing of the same. 6. Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP for the State however submits that there was misrepresentation on the part of petitioner No. 1 inasmuch as he did not inform the informant that the OTP was required for closure of the complaint lodged Page No.# 4/6 before the RBI so that the verification process for the top-up loan could proceed. As such, he submits that the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of an offence. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. At the outset, to attract the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 316 of the BNS it is required that the accused being entrusted in any manner with property or having dominion over such property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts the same to his own use or dishonestly uses or disposes of such property in violation of any direction of law will be said to have been committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. 8. In the instant case, there is no allegation of any entrustment of property to the petitioner nor is there any allegation that the petitioner had dominion over any property which he dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are not made out and Section 316 of the BNS is not attracted. Similar is the case with regard to the offence of cheating. Under Section 318 of the BNS, 2023 a person is said to commit cheating if by deceiving any person he fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent to the retention of any property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and such act or omission leads damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. In the instant case, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had induced the informant to deliver any property to him or that the petitioner had thereafter dishonestly used or retained such property. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence of Page No.# 5/6 cheating are not also made out. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust are not made out. Further, no other cognizable offence is disclosed from the allegations contained in the said case. It will not be out of context to mention herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & Others, reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 has held that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the proceedings may be quashed in the interest of justice. 10. It has also held that where the allegations made in the FIR and the other materials placed on record do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence warranting investigation by a police officer, the High Court may quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 11. The Apex Court has also held in the said decision that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis thereof no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings may also be quashed in the interest of justice. 12. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and upon applying the same to the facts of the instant case it is seen that no offence has been committed by the petitioners either under Section 316 or Section 318 of the BNS or under any other provision of law. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit and proper to quash the instant FIR in the interest of justice. Page No.# 6/6 13. This Court further observes that there was no misrepresentation on the part of petitioner No. 1 in the instant case inasmuch as closure of the complaint lodged before the RBI was required for processing the top-up loan applied for by the informant. 14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR resulting in Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 263 of 2025 registered before Mukalmua Police Station is hereby quashed. The petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant