Page No.# 1/16 GAHC020002212023 2026:GAU-NL:141 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./5/2023 SRI. ABHILASH KISHORE KASHYAP AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O LATE PRADYUT KUMAR DAS, R/O H/NO.207, HENGRABARI MAIN ROAD, NEAR HENGRABARI L.P. SCHOOL, P.O. HENGRABARI, P.S. DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM - 781036 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND 2:MR. RUUZHALIE NAGI S/O KETHOLESIE NAGI R/O H/NO. 61 A - KHEL KUDA VILLAGE DIMAPUR NAGALAND - 79711 Advocate for the Petitioner : P J SAIKIA, K J SAIKIA,THUYEKHRULU Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, Page No.# 2/16 BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Advocates: For the Petitioner : Mr. P.J. Saikia (Senior Counsel), Thuyekhrulu For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Limawapang Public Prosecutor, Nagaland : Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi Date of Hearing : 23.03.2026 Date of Judgment : 23.03.2026 J U D G E M E N T & O R D E R (O R A L) The instant application under Section 482 of the CrPC has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the FIR/Complaint registered as GD Entry No. 06/2022 dated 12.09.2022, pertaining to the East Police Station, Dimapur, Nagaland and the subsequent criminal proceedings. 2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.J. Saikia assisted by Ms. Thuyekhrulu. Also heard Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/complainant. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Contractor by profession and he is executing contractual works under the name and style of M/S Zeliezhu & Sons, a partnership firm of which the petitioner and one Mr. Thangchunghnung Hmar are the partners. One M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. in the district of Papum Pare of Arunachal Pradesh, which is a proprietorship firm is also engaged in execution of similar projects as that of the petitioner and is known to the petitioner and as such, whenever necessary, the services of each other, on request, are made available to Page No.# 3/16 the other. 4. It is also stated that the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH) Nagaland has issued a Letter of Award No. CE/NH/NH(O)/2020-21/109/484-486 dated 22.10.2021 in favour of M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. for execution of the project- “Development of existing 2-lane pavement including strengthening of NH-36 from 160/000 Km to 166/880 Km in Dimapur city portion in the State of Nagaland”. The award was for an amount of ₹13,75,41,810/- (Rupees Thirteen Crore Seventy-five Lakhs Forty-one Thousand Eight Hundred Ten only). 5. The petitioner states that for execution of the aforesaid contract, the said M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. had arranged Performance Bank Guarantee for an amount of ₹41,26,555/- (Rupees Forty-one Lakhs Twenty-six Thousand Five Hundred Fifty-five only), which was forwarded by the concerned bank to the Office of the Chief Engineer, PWD(NH), Nagaland, Kohima through digital mode. The aforesaid Performance Bank Guarantee was submitted by the M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. vide Letter dated 25.11.2021. 6. The petitioner also states that the proprietor of the aforesaid M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. had issued an authorization letter authorizing the petitioner and the other Director of the petitioner’s firm to assist him in the preliminary works such as attending the meetings on behalf of the firm and also to sign documents on its behalf. And, accordingly, a Letter dated 27.10.2021 was issued to the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH), Nagaland intimating the authorization of the petitioner and Mr. Page No.# 4/16 Thangchunghnung Hmar for attending all the meetings in respect of the said project with further stipulation that the said authorization letter shall be replaced during signing of the contract as per Power of Attorney signing bid. 7. After receipt of the aforesaid Bank Guarantee, the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH), Nagaland and M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. executed an agreement. On sub allocation by the M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co., Mr. Ruuzhalie Nagi/complainant was to execute the work on the strength of the Power of Attorney issued by the M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. After completion of the necessary formalities, a joint inspection was carried out by the authority with M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. and fixed 13.12.2021 as the appointed day for commencement of the project. 8. As Mr. Ruuzhalie Nagi/complainant did not possess the required credentials and qualification for execution of the contract, the complainant approached the petitioner for utilization of the credentials of the petitioner and to provide technical support, including supply of tools and machinery and other construction materials. On such request, with the consent of M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co., the petitioner on behalf of the said firm entered into a Sub-Contract Agreement with the complainant whereby both the parties undertook joint responsibility of execution of work and in turn the petitioner would receive 2% of each Running Account Bill. The complainant commenced executing work and the petitioner also discharged his responsibilities of mobilizing the tools and machineries to the site and also supplied construction materials such as bitumen and emulsion, etc. Page No.# 5/16 9. It is further stated that a joint account had been opened by the complainant and M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. at the Nagaland State Co-operative Bank. However, till date, no amount has been released by the authority in that account. A joint account was also opened in the name of the petitioner’s firm and the complainant at HDFC Bank, Dimapur Branch. However, as no transaction was made in the said account, the account was closed. 10. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH), Nagaland issued a Show Cause Notice No. CE/NH/NH(O)/2020-21/109/272 to M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co., wherein it has been alleged that the Performance Bank Guarantee submitted by M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. was a fraudulent document, which attracted termination of the contract under Articles 22 and 23 of the Agreement and thereby asked the M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. to submit its response within 15 (fifteen) days. Along with the Show Cause Notice, a Letter dated 29.06.2022 issued by the bank of Maharashtra, Thane Zone was also enclosed which reveals that the said bank had not issued the Bank Guarantee dated 22.11.2021. 11. Immediately on coming to know about the aforesaid act of submitting fraudulent bank guarantee, the petitioner submitted a complaint on 06.07.2022 before the Officer-in-Charge of Dispur Police Station stating that although he had signed the bid and contract agreement, yet the Bank Guarantee was arranged by one Sish Khan, and thereby requested to register the complaint as an FIR which was duly registered and numbered as Dispur Police Station Case No. 1632/2022 under Sections 467/420/409/34 IPC. Page No.# 6/16 12. Pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 05.07.2022, the M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. submitted its Show Cause Reply before the authority. However, the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH), Nagaland issued the termination notice No. CE/NH/NH(O)/2020-21/109/368-373 dated 27.07.2022 terminating the contract awarded to M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. Another Notice of Debarment dated 27.07.2022 was also issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD(NH), Nagaland debarring the M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. from participating in all tenders of the state PWD and MoRTH projects for a period of 2 (two) years. 12. At this juncture, after termination of the contract, the complainant filed a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, East Police Station, Dimapur on 12.09.2022 stating that sometime in the month of December 2021, the petitioner had offered to jointly execute the project relating to strengthening of NH-36 with his firm and that the petitioner made him to believe that he was the legal representative of M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. and that a Sub-Contract Agreement dated 22.12.2021 was executed between the petitioner and the complainant and another MoU was also executed between the parties on 24.05.2022. Accordingly, he had made investments to the tune of about ₹2.4 Crore in the said project. However, the said project was terminated by the Chief Engineer, PWD(NH), Nagaland. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner being the authorized legal representative of M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. was responsible for depositing the performance security of ₹41,26,255/- only, and that the Performance Bank Guarantee deposited by the petitioner was found to be fake and forged. The complainant thereby requested the Officer-in-Charge of the East Police Station to register the Page No.# 7/16 case against the petitioner and to prosecute as per provisions of law. 13. The petitioner states that on receipt of the aforesaid complaint the Officer-in-Charge of East Police Station issued a Notice under Section 41A CrPC, directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 25.01.2023. The said Notice was not received by the petitioner. Therefore, subsequent notices dated 12.01.2023 and 25.01.2023 were issued to the petitioner. Apprehending arrest in connection the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner approached this Court for pre arrest bail and the same was registered as AB/2/2023 and this Court, by Order dated 20.03.2023 granted interim pre arrest bail and thereafter the interim order was made absolute on 10.04.2023. 14. Subsequent to the interim order dated 20.03.2023 passed in AB/2/2023, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer. However, the complainant was also present at the Police Station on 23.03.2023 when the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer. In the name of an amicable settlement, the complainant forced the petitioner to sign a bond and an undertaking, and on the threat of facing dire consequences, the petitioner was forced to sign the agreement. Faced with this situation, the petitioner on compulsion signed the said agreement and thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to leave the Police Station. 15. The petitioner also submits that another Notice under Section 41A CrPC dated 11.05.2023 has been issued by the Officer-in-Charge, East Police Station, Dimapur directing the petitioner to appear before the said Page No.# 8/16 authority on 20.05.2023 on the ground that the petitioner has not paid a single penny to the complainant as per the agreement dated 23.03.2023 and that the FIR in GD Entry No. 6/2022 is still active and the petitioner is fully bound to face legal action if he fails to comply with the said notice. The petitioner had not been served a copy of the said Notice dated 11.05.2023 though it appears from the said notice that a copy of the same has been sent to the Dispur Police Station for service. 16. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has already filed a Title Suit No. 298/2023 in the court of Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup Metro at Guwahati praying for a decree declaring the bond of undertaking dated 23.03.2023 and MoU dated 24.05.2022 as illegal and not binding upon the petitioner. The suit has been admitted for hearing and notice has been issued upon the respondent no. 2/complainant. 17. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation made in the FIR against him with regard to the submission of forged Performance Bank Guarantee is a false statement, which is apparent on the face of the records as it was submitted by one Sish Khan on behalf of M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. It is submitted that the filing of the complaint by the complainant/respondent no. 2 has been filed with mala fide intention to extort money from the petitioner under the garb of police investigation and the complainant has forcefully obtained the signature of the petitioner on the undertaking dated 23.03.2023 at the East Police Station, Dimapur. 18. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that another FIR Page No.# 9/16 No. 0026/2022 dated 05.08.2022 has been lodged at the South Police Station, Kohima by the Chief Engineer, PWD(NH), Nagaland against M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. for submission of bogus/forged Bank Guarantee against the development of existing 2 –lane pavement including strengthening of NH-36 in Dimapur city portion. He has, therefore submitted that on the same allegations, registration of a second FIR is not maintainable. Moreover, the police have no jurisdiction to investigate on an allegation which is predominantly civil in nature. However, in the instant case, the East Police Station Dimapur has flouted all the mandatory provisions of law by keeping the FIR alive in the said GD Entry No. 6/2022, where the allegation is mainly for non-execution of the agreement/undertaking dated 23.03.2023. 19. The learned senior counsel has argued that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is purely a civil dispute clothed with criminal character to exert pressure on the petitioner for payment of a certain amount which is otherwise not legally due to the complainant/respondent no. 2. The matter is a civil dispute regarding the Sub-Contract Agreement dated 22.12.2021 and the alleged undertaking dated 23.03.2023 which are already sub judice before a civil court. Therefore, the attempt made by the respondent no. 2 for execution of the said agreement dated 23.03.2023 through police machinery is highly illegal and as such, the said complaint in GD Entry No. 6/2022 is liable to be quashed. 20. The learned senior counsel further submits that there is absolutely no ingredients of commission of any offence as alleged by the respondent no. Page No.# 10/16 2 as it clearly appears from the records that the Performance Bank Guarantee has been submitted by the M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. through one Sish Khan and not the petitioner. It is stated that in the garb of police investigation, FIR/Complaint dated 12.09.2022 is only to pressurize the petitioner to submit to the demand of the respondent no. 2 and is nothing but an abuse of power by the police as well as an abuse of the process of the court. The learned senior counsel, therefore, prays that the FIR/Complaint in GD Entry No. 6/2022 of the East Police Station, Dimapur against the petitioner, as well as the Notice dated 11.05.2023 issued by the Officer-in-Charge of the East Police Station may be quashed and set aside and further prays that the respondent authorities may be directed not to take any steps in pursuance of the FIR/Complaint under GD Entry No. 6/2022. 21. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following authorities in respect of his submissions: (i) Mahmood Ali And Others Versus State of U.P. And Others reported in AIROnline 2023 SC 602, (ii) V.Y. Jose And Another Versus State of Gujarat And Another reported in (2009) 3 SCC 78, (iii) Ram Biraji Devi And Another reported in (2006) 6 SCC 669, (iv) Amitabhai Anilchandra Shah Versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, (v) P. Krishna Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1157. 22. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi submits Page No.# 11/16 that upon receipt of the complaint dated 12.09.2022 from the respondent no. 2 a preliminary inquiry was carried out and thereafter an FIR dated No. 215/2023 dated 28.08.2023 has been lodged against the petitioner under Sections 406/420/465/467/468 and 471 IPC. 23. In the Complaint dated 12.09.2022, the respondent no. 2/complainant had alleged that the project titled- “Development of existing 2-lane pavement including strengthening of NH-36 in Dimapur city portion.” was awarded to M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. of Arunachal Pradesh by the Chief Engineer, PWD(NH), Nagaland. The cost of the said project was ₹13,75,41,810/- (Rupees Thirteen Crore Seventy Five Lakhs Forty One Thousand Eight Hundred Ten only). It was alleged in the complaint that the present petitioner offered to jointly execute the project with the complainant’s firm. The petitioner made him to believe that he was the legal representative and authorized signatory of M/S Zeliezhu & Sons and also made him believe that his firm, i.e., M/S Zeliezhu & Sons was going to execute the said project for and on behalf of M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. The petitioner also produced a copy of the Letter of Award to M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. dated 22.10.2021. Accordingly, the complainant executed a Sub-Contract Agreement dated 22.12.2021 between him and M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co., represented by the petitioner. Thereafter, another MoU dated 24.05.2022 was executed between the parties. The complainant alleged that he had made investments to the tune of ₹2.5 Crore in the said project. When he had been executing the project, he was shocked to learn that the project had been terminated by the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH), Nagaland vide Termination Notice dated 27.07.2022. It was further alleged in the Page No.# 12/16 Complaint that the petitioner being the authorized legal representative of M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. was responsible for depositing the Performance Guarantee of ₹41,26,255/-, which was later found to be fake and forged. Having found a prima facie case, the FIR dated 28.08.2023 was lodged at the South Police Station, Kohima. 24. The learned Public Prosecutor by relying on the Case Diary, which has been produced by before the Court submits that during the investigation a letter dated 17.07.2023 was received from Mr. Gora Makik, the proprietor of M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. stating that M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. is a firm run under his proprietorship based at Arunachal Pradesh; however, due to unauthorized use of the firm by Mr. Abhilash Kishore Kashyap, the petitioner, leading to forging of his signature to wrongfully gain contractual work and due to which his firm has been blacklisted and that the M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. is non- functional for the last 2 (two) years. The learned Public Prosecutor has also stated that the real proprietor of the M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Company, Mr. Gora Makik has been under medical treatment throughout 2020-2021 and 2022 and the Medical Certificate dated 18.07.2023 has also been procured by the investigating agency and is part of the Case Diary. The learned Public Prosecutor therefore submits that a prima facie case under Section 406/420/465/467/468/471 of the IPC has been made out and, therefore, the investigating agency should be allowed to continue with the investigation in the interest of justice. 25. The learned counsel, Mr. Limawapang appearing for respondent no. 2 has also adopted the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor Page No.# 13/16 and further states that conditions stipulated in the sub-contract agreement dated 22.12.2021 goes to show that the petitioner had been projecting himself as the representative of M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. As per the Sub-Contract Agreement dated 22.12.2021, the principal contractor had to deposit the performance security of ₹41,26,255/-. As the petitioner’s firm/M/S Zeliezhu & Sons executed the Agreement standing in for M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co, the principal contractor is the petitioner himself/M/S Zeliezhu & Sons. And, therefore, it was the petitioner who had deposited the performance bank guarantee of ₹41,26,255/-, which was found to be fake and forged. Learned counsel states that it is pertinent to note that the proprietor of M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co in his letter dated 17.07.2023 has categorically stated that ‘M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. is non-functional for the last 2 (two) years’ which goes to show that in the year 2021-2022 the ‘M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. was not active. And therefore it was the petitioner who had been forging the signature of the real proprietor and representing himself as the authorized agent of the ‘M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by an alleged accused under Section 482, CrPC, the court only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. Page No.# 14/16 26. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Case Diary as well as the authorities relied upon by the parties. 27. In the case of State of Haryana Versus Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that save in exceptional cases, where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offence. The Supreme Court also outlined the seven conditions where the High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash an FIR or criminal proceedings, i.e., (i) No prima facie offence, (ii) No cognizable offence, (iii) No controverted allegations- even if all allegations are taken at face value, they had not disclosed any offence, (iv) No offence disclosed, (v) Absurd or improbable allegations, (vi) When there is a specific legal bar against the institution or continuation of the criminal proceedings and (vii) Malicious proceedings. 28. In the case of Jitul Jentilal Kotecha Versus State of Gujarat reported in (2022) 13 SCC 652, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that the high court must exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC sparingly and with circumspection. In cases of breach of trust there is always the likelihood of elements of civil nature as well as criminal liability. Merely because a certain transaction has civil liability does not mean that it can also have criminal ingredients. Further, in the case of M. Krishnan Versus Vijay Singh and Another reported in (2001) 8 SCC 645, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in all cases of cheating and fraud, there is generally some element of civil nature. If mere pendency of a suit is made Page No.# 15/16 a ground for quashing criminal proceedings, unscrupulous litigants apprehending criminal action against them would be encouraged to frustrate the grounds of justice and law by filing suits. Therefore, the test to be applied in a petition under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS is whether the allegations in the complaint/FIR prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged. And in such proceedings, this court cannot test the veracity of the allegations nor proceed in a manner which a judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of evidence collected during the trial. 29. This Court, upon going through the Case Diary and more specifically the Letter dated 17.07.2023 written by Mr. Gora Makik, the proprietor of the M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co., finds that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner under Sections 406/420/465//467468/471 of IPC, which requires the police to investigate and to arrive at a logical conclusion. The FIR dated 28.08.2023 against the petitioner also cannot be held to be a second FIR inasmuch as the FIR lodged by the Chief Engineer (NH), Nagaland on 05.08.2022 is against M/S Kampung Kamyer Trading Co. and not the petitioner even though it arises out of the same bank guarantees which were found to be fake and forged. This petitioner has not been able to make out any of the seven conditions laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) in order to enable this Court to exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 30. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the view that the ingredients of the offences charged against the petitioner are prima facie present in the instant case and for the reasons aforementioned, this Court Page No.# 16/16 finds that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case to warrant the interference of this Court under Section 482 CrPC and, therefore, the petition is dismissed. 31. Registry to return the Case Diary to the learned Public Prosecutor. 32. The petition is disposed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant