Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010005682026 2026:GAU-AS:14127 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./925/2025 PALLAV TAMULI APS S/O SRI PADMA TAMULY RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 6 TAPAN NAGAR GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785621. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. THROUGH THE PP ASSAM 2:SRI MANUJ KR DAS INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND I/C RECORD BRANCH DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION ASSAM SRIMANTAPUR GUWAHATI. ------------ Page No.# 2/10 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN Advocate for the petitioner(s):Mr K N Choudhury, Sr Adv Mr J Patowary, Mr T Kashyap Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr B Sarma, APP Date on which judgment was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment :23.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment has been: Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR being CID PS Case No. 07 of 2024, registered under Sections 166-A (b), 217, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 98 (a) of the Assam Police Act, 2007. 2. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was lodged on 18th of June, 2024, by the Inspector of Police, an In-Charge of Record Branch, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati, stating, inter alia, that during supervision of a regular enquiry case, being RE No. 21 (4) of 2017, by Sri Barun Purkayastha, IPS, the then Superintendent of Police (Law), DV & AC, Assam, it Page No.# 3/10 was found that although a Government approval was given vide letter dated 30th of January, 2018, to register a regular case against accused person, namely, Sri Khujendra Doley, who was, at that juncture, working as Secretary, Irrigation Department, the same was not done and the enquiry of the said RE was going on. It was further averred that upon receipt of the information, the concerned authority entrusted Barun Purkayastha to conduct an enquiry vide Order dated 22.06.2023, to find out the Officers responsible for the lapse with regard to inordinate delay in registration of the said case as per the approval of the Government. The informant further stated that the said enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found to be responsible for the same. The enquiry was in connection with the allegation of disproportionate asset acquired by the accused person, while he was working as Secretary in the Irrigation Department and who was arrested in connection with a trap case. It was also stated that the petitioner carried out some enquiry and the Government was moved with a request to accord approval to register a regular case against the accused person and in response to the said action, the Government accorded his approval on 30th of January, 2018, and the letter of the Government approval was put up to the then IGP of the Vigilance Department, who had directed to draft one FIR against the accused person and in pursuance thereof, the concerned authority in the Vigilance Department, directed the petitioner to comply with the orders of the IGP and the extract of the relevant note sheet was handed over to the petitioner on 15.02.2018. The informant also stated that the Enquiry Officer, Sri Barun Purkayastha stated in his enquiry report that the petitioner had not only failed to take any step to lodge the FIR against the accused person, but had also continued the regular enquiry in violation of the Government order. It is also stated that the petitioner knew about the approval Page No.# 4/10 accorded by the Government, but he still submitted a progress report on 12.12.2018. It is as such submitted that no criminal case was registered against the accused person for a period of around 1 1/2 years when the petitioner was the enquiry officer of the said regular enquiry. Since it was detected that the petitioner has disobeyed the order of the Government in his pursuit to save the accused person, the instant FIR was lodged against the petitioner. It is this FIR that the petitioner has prayed for quashing. 3. The learned Senior Counsel submitted before this Court that the enquiry in RE No. 21(4) of 2017, was conducted by the petitioner as was ordered against the accused person, who was caught red handed for demanding and accepting Rs. 15,000/-. Allegations were also to the effect that an amount of Rs. 3,29,000/-, with an additional amount of Rs. 39,50,000/- was recovered from his house as well as the office chamber. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that another amount of Rs. 11,24,000/- was recovered with regard to investment policies from the house of the petitioner and the enquiry was initiated. The petitioner being the DSP in the Vigilance Department, was entrusted with the enquiry and the petitioner had submitted a detailed action plan by making various communications. He also stated that the accused person had not cooperated with the petitioner during the enquiry and that the petitioner vide its letter addressed to the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, had requested for according approval to register a regular case against the accused person. However, the learned Senior Counsel submits that although in the said FIR, it was stated that the Government approval was received by the IGP, who in turn, directed for lodging an FIR and instructed the SP (II) of Vigilance Department, to direct the petitioner to lodge the FIR, but he submits Page No.# 5/10 that the petitioner did not receive the alleged communication dated 15.02.2018 and as such, he continued with the enquiry and submitted a progress report on 12.12.2018. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioner was transferred out of the Vigilance Department, Assam, and he handed over the charge on 13.12.2018, and that, thereafter, the enquiry was endorsed to another Inspector. He also submits that after the enquiry was handed over, the same continued for another 4 years for which, no action was taken against other officials, and the authorities had singled out the petitioner only. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is an Office Memorandum issued by the Government of Assam dated 16th of June, 2024, wherein it was stated that pursuant to Government approval to initiate criminal proceeding against any suspected officer, the allegation petition filed before hand would take the shape of a vigilance case. He, as such, submits that the petition filed by Md Soleman Ali, Deputy Superintendent of the Vigilance Department against the accused person, on 24.04.2017, would take the shape of a vigilance case and he submits that there is no requirement to file a separate FIR. Further, he submits that the note sheets do not indicate that petitioner had received the communication. 4. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the Government approval for lodging an FIR against the accused person was communicated to the petitioner by the SP(II) of the Vigilance Department and the same was received by the petitioner on 15.02.2018, and as such, he submits that the argument that petitioner had not received the relevant information, is not sustainable. He further submits that in spite of the Government approval, which was received by the petitioner, the petitioner did not lodge the case and continued with the enquiry and submitted a progress report and on his transfer, Page No.# 6/10 handed over the case to his successor, which shows that he sided with the accused person and as such, submits that the FIR cannot be quashed in view of the same. 5. I have heard the counsels and I have gone through the records. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335 has held as under:- “8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide- ï7 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are 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; b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi- gation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; Page No.# 7/10 c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 8.2. In the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence and this case does not call for the exercise Page No.# 8/10 of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. itself.” It is as such, clear from above that if the allegation made in the first information report or the complaint taken at their face value, do not disclose prima facie offence or does not make out a case against the accused person, the FIR or the complaint, as the case may be, can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power. Further, on a bare reading of the FIR and other materials accompanying the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation, by the Police Officers, under Section 156(1) of the Code, a permission is to be taken from the concerned Magistrate and the investigation can be carried out upon receipt of the said permission. It is also seen that if the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or the complaint does not disclose commission of an offence, then the same can be quashed. 7. By applying the aforesaid analogy to the instant case, it can be seen that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was entrusted with the enquiry with regard to RE No. 21(4) of 2017, and in pursuance to the same, he started with the enquiry and took certain actions with regard to accumulation of assets by the accused person, which were considered to be disproportionate to his known source of income. It is, thereafter, revealed in the said FIR that the concerned official from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam, moved the Government for approval to register a regular case against the accused person by memo dated 25.10.2017 and in response to the said memo, the Government of Assam, had accorded approval on 30th of January, 2018, and the letter of the Government was put up to the IGP of Vigilance Department, who directed to draft one FIR. In pursuance to the said direction, the then SP(II), directed the Page No.# 9/10 petitioner to comply with the orders of the IGP and the extract of the relevant note sheet containing the orders of the IGP was handed over to the petitioner. It was also stated in the FIR that the said extract was received by the petitioner on 15.02.2018. However, the petitioner despite knowing the decision of the Government, he continued with the enquiry and submitted a progress report after 10 months, i.e., on 12.12.2018. A bare reading of the said contents of the FIR do disclose commission of a cognizable offence committed by the petitioner. It is also seen that the extract of the note sheet was not only stated to have been received by the petitioner, but also the date was mentioned as to when the petitioner received it. It is no longer res integra that the extracts of the note sheets have to be communicated to the concerned official otherwise, the note sheets will have no relevance, but in the instant case, it is stated that extracts were received by the petitioner. 8. Further, it is averred in the FIR that an enquiry was directed to be conducted by Sri Barun Purkayastha to look into the lapses for the delay caused in registration of the case against the accused person and to fix the responsibility upon the officers concerned and in compliance to the same, the said officer had enquired and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report that on perusal of the note sheets, it is learnt that Government approval was put up to the IGP of the Vigilance Department, vide para-45N at Page No. 10, and, thereafter, vide para- 46N, the IGP directed that an FIR should be drawn and put up and by para-47N, the SP (II) of the Vigilance Department, directed the petitioner to comply with the orders of the IGP. In the said enquiry report, it is further stated that the extract of Page-10 of the note sheet was handed over to the petitioner and he received it on 15.02.2018. In the enquiry report, it was, thereafter, stated that the petitioner instead of complying with the orders, had Page No.# 10/10 submitted a progress report after 10 months of the receipt of the office note. Although in the said report, it is stated that apart from the petitioner, other officials are also responsible for the negligence and for not complying with the orders of the Government, but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that it was the petitioner who was provided with the directions of the IGP to lodge the case against the accused person, to which, he did not. 9. The further argument of the learned Senior Counsel that the petition which was filed and which led to the enquiry, i.e., RE No. 21(4) of 2017, should have been considered the vigilance case and that there is no requirement to lodge a new case, can, however, be not accepted, in view of the fact that there is a specific direction in the shape of the Government approval to lodge a case against the accused person. There can be cases where there are no such directions or there are no informant to lodge a fresh case, then, in that eventuality, the original petition, by which the enquiry started will be considered as the vigilance case. The same is not the case here and on a prima facie examination of the FIR shows that the petitioner was intimated about the approval, the IGP’s directions, and, as such, in the said facts, the present FIR, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be quashed. 10. The petition is as such, dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant