Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010037682026 2026:GAU-AS:13860 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./260/2026 SRI BARUN KUMAR SAHA S/O LATE ATUL BHUSANPERMANENT RESIDENT OF KUTUB PURP.O. MURSHIDABADDISTRICT MURSHIDABAD PIN 742149, WEST BENGAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. B, 180, DUM DUM PARK P.O. BANGURP.S. LAKE TOWN KOLKATA 700055 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MITRA, MS. A KALITA,MR A K BORO,MR S.MITRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 18-09-2026 Heard Mr. S Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Das, the learned Addl. PP appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 528 BNSS for setting aside and quashing of the Page No.# 2/8 order dated 30.10.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Criminal Revision No. 20/2025 and to direct the Officer-in-Charge of the police station to investigate into the matter. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially an FIR was lodged before Officer-in-Charge, Dhubri Police Station, discussing in detail in regards to property in dispute between the parties and brought the allegation against one Anuradha Saha, the aunt of the petitioner who with dishonest intention has falsely represented herself to be the lawful attorney holder had sold the share of Late Radha Rani Saha by executing a sale deed in favour of her own daughter after cancellation of General Power of Attorney executed in faour of said Anuradha Saha. However, it was a long FIR wherein the entire property dispute has been mentioned and with the allegation an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Dhubri Police Station. But, the said complaint/FIR was sent by the petitioner through Indian Post vide Consignment No. RW825559058IN dated 14.05.2024. But, despite of receipt of the said complaint, no action was taken by the Officer-in-Charge, Dhubri Police station and for which he subsequently approached to the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri and another complaint was accordingly filed before SP, Dhubri which was also sent through Registered A/D. But, even after receipt of the said consignment on 22.05.2024, no action was so far has been taken by the Dhubri police authorities. Finding no other alternative, they approached the learned JMFC, Dhubri by filing a complaint seeking a direction to the Investigating Agency to register an FIR and to conduct a proper investigation into the matter. Said complaint was registered as C.R. Case No. 539/2024 and after hearing the complainant and his counsel, the learned JMFC, Dhubri had dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 06.08.2024 observing that the dispute involved in Page No.# 3/8 this case is purely civil in nature. 4. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned JMFC, Dhubri, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge by filing a revision petition seeking direction for setting aside the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by learned JMFC, Dhubri and also for a direction to Officer- in-Charge, Dhubri to investigate into the matter. The said revision petition was numbered as 20/2024 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri after hearing counsels for both sides had passed an order dated 30.10.2025 and pleased to dismiss the revision petition. 5. On being highly aggrieved with the order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/2025 whereby an order of learned JMFC dated 06.08.2024 is upheld, the present petition is filed by the petitioner. 6. Mr. Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the learned JMFC as well as the learned Sessions Judge had made an observation that the dispute is basically civil in nature and with the said observation the complaint was dismissed by the learned JMFC as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He submitted that as per provision of Section 173(3) of BNSS the Officer-in-Charge of Dhubri Police Station should make a preliminary enquiry on receipt of any information relating to commission of any cognizable offence. But, here in the instant case in spite of receiving complaint from the petition wherein prima facie a case of forgery was disclosed, the Officer-in-Charge of Dhubri P.S. as well as Superintendent of the Dhubri did not make any enquiry or did not take any action. Further, he submitted that a Magistrate has also the power and authority to make a direction for investigation u/s 175(3) of BNSS after making an enquiry, if he thinks it necessary for sending the same before the police station. But, here in the Page No.# 4/8 instant case from the order passed by the learned Magistrate it reveals that he did not make any enquiry and very mechanically had passed the order, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner only with the observation that the prima facie materials do not attract the ingredients of Section 318(4) of BNS for taking any cognizance. But, the learned Trial Court below did not make any endeavour to enquire the matter and very mechanically had passed the order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. 7. In the same time the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the order in revision petition also had observed that it was purely a civil dispute wherein a title suit was also pending between the parties and with that observation only he declined to make any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC dated 06.08.2024. 8. Mr. Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it may be basically a civil dispute but, the criminal ingredients are also available to take cognizance under the criminal law. But, that aspect was not considered by the learned JMFC as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. Mr. Mitra also relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. Misc. Appln. No. 11991 of 2007 [ Sunita v. State of U.P.] and relied on para 8 of the said judgment which reads as under:- “8. Relying upon the aforesaid law as laid down by the Apex Court it Jhas been observed by this Court in the case of Masuman v. State of U.P., 2007 (1) ALJ 221 as folllows:- "Thus whenever the magistrate is approached by an aggrieved person with the prayer that the police has refused to register his FIR of cognizable offence the Magistrate is required to look into his such prayer only to determine as to whether any cognizable offence is disclosed thereby or not and if, it does then he has no option but to direct the police to register the FIR and Investigate the offence. At this stage it may be pointed out that the Magistrate is not required to conduct an inquiry under Section 156(3) of the Code and he should not saddle himself with Page No.# 5/8 additional burden of discharging the function of police as crime prevention and crime detection is the primary and foremost duty of the later and so it must be left to it to perform this part of his duty." 10. Mr. Mitra also relied on a decision of M/s Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s NEPC India Limited and Others passed by two Judges Bench reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2780 and emphasized in para 9(v) which reads as under:- “9(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” 11. Citing the above referred judgments it is submitted by Mr. Mitra that there may be civil dispute between the parties basically, but the criminal intention from the alleged act of forgery done by the accused clearly establishes a case under the criminal law and hence both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court had come to a wrong conclusion and dismissed the complaint only with the observation that it is a civil dispute. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Mitra that it is a fit case wherein the order of Revisional Court and the learned Trial Court may be set aside and quashed with a direction to the police officer to investigate the case and to report accordingly. 12. Mr. Das, the learned Addl. PP raised objection and submitted that from the order passed by the learned Trial Court below as well as learned Revisional Court, it is very much clear that the petitioner failed to show by any document that any forgery was committed to send it for investigation and that apart the provision u/s 175(3) also not followed, which requires an affidavit. He further Page No.# 6/8 submitted that in the same time the learned Revisional Court also made a detailed discussion as to how the matter is basically a civil dispute and from the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge it also reveals that there is a civil suit is pending before the Court and wherein also the execution of the registered Sale Deed No. 2371 dated 14.11.1996 was also brought and with those observations, the order was passed that the case is of civil in nature and the complaint was basically filed only in order to put pressure by the complainant. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Das that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court did not find any material involving the criminal offence and the entire case is basically a civil dispute and hence the complaint/revision petition filed before the Court were dismissed by passing a reasoned order. Mr. Das accordingly submitted that there is no need of any interference of the order of the learned Trial Court below as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge and it is submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the order passed by the learned Trial Court below as well as the learned Revisional Court. It is the case of the petitioner that they have initially lodged FIR and complaint before the Officer-in-Charge and the S.P of Dhubri district. But, that was not entertained neither by the Officer-in-Charge nor by the SP of the concerned district and for which they had to approach the learned JMFC with a complaint and seeking further direction to the Officer-in-Charge of Dhubri Police Station for making preliminary enquiry. It is seen that in both the cases, the FIR/complaint were sent through Registered Post and it is claimed that those were duly served on the Officer-in-Charge as well as the SP of the district. But, the petitioner failed to file any supporting Page No.# 7/8 affidavit to that regard while lodging complaint before the learned JMFC, which is required as per law. Further from the complaint/FIR instituted by the petitioner, it is seen that detail description of the dispute has been mentioned wherefrom it basically revealed that the dispute was a civil dispute. However, the allegation of forgery has been brought against one Anuradha Saha that without having any authority after cancellation of power of attorney she made the gift deed as well as the sale deed. But, the learned JMFC while hearing the matter and after making preliminary enquiry had observed that the entire case is basically a civil dispute and there is no criminal involvement to send the same before the Officer-in-Charge for investigation. That apart, it was observed that the affidavit is also not annexed along with the complaint to prove the fact, they have instituted a complaint before the Officer-in-charge as well as Superintendent of Dhubri district. It is a settled law that whenever an aggrieved person approach the Magistrate with a prayer for direction to the police officer to investigate the case or to register an FIR of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate can pass such direction to make an enquiry in that regard. But, for that also Magistrate is to see as to whether there is any cognizable offence is disclosed to send the same for investigation by the police officer. But, for such direction the Magistrate has to satisfy themselves as to whether any cognizable offence is disclosed by complaint itself. Here in the instant case it is seen that from the complaint itself there is no disclosure of any cognizable or criminal offence to send the same for investigation. More so, from the order passed by the learned Revisional Court also it is seen that one Title Suit No. 105 of 2018 along with the Misc. Case 156/2018 was earlier filed before the Munsiff No. 3 which was rejected by the learned Munsiff and the subject matter of the said suit was also same and the Gift Deed No. 2178 dated 08.11.1995 and a Sale Page No.# 8/8 Deed were also under challenge. The fact is also disclosed by the present petitioner in his complaint lodged before the learned Trial Court below. From the said complaint also it is seen that after dismissal of the Title Suit No. 136/2000 another suit was filed by the petitioner which was also rejected and at present the appeal is pending before the Appellate Court between the parties. 14. So considering all these aspects of this case, vis-à-vis the discussion made by the learned Revisional Court, it is seen that the allegation of forgery which is brought against the accused is already being agitated before the civil forum and the entire dispute seems to be a civil dispute pending between the parties. 15. It is a settled law that in a civil suit or a commercial dispute also there may be involvement of some criminal offence and only for balancing of a criminal suit/civil suit a criminal case cannot be dismissed. But, here in the instant case it is seen that the petition does not disclose prima facie a criminal offence to send before the police station or to pass any direction to the police officer to make any preliminary enquiry in that regard. 16. In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court below vis-à-vis the learned Revisional Court/learned Additional Sessions Judge committed no error or mistake by dismissing the revision petition filed against the order of learned JMFC dated 06.08.2024 passed in C.R. Case No. 539/2024. 17. With the above observations, the criminal petition stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant