Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010194692025 2026:GAU-AS:4222 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1062/2025 BHARGAB JYOTI NATH SON OF LATE UPENDRA NATH RESIDENT OF VILL- BAMUNBARI, P.O. SOLAGURI, P.S. JAMUGURI, IN THE DISTRICT OF SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784180. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SRI PHANINDRA KR. BORAH SON OF LATE SOMNATH DUTTA BORAH R/O TEZPUR TOWN 1ST FLOOR USHANAGAR PO.O. AND P.S. TEZPUR SONITPUR PIN-784001 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MR. J K ROY,MR A DEY,MR. R SARMA,MR A CHAKRABORTY,MR. M P SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. D CHOUDHURY (R-2) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 24.03.2026. Page No.# 2/9 Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent and Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR dated 04.03.2025, being the Tezpur P.S. Case No. 149/2025, under Sections 318(3)/316(2)/ 296/74/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No.337/2025. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel that the present petitioner had purchased the land in question measuring 1 katha 5 lecha from the informant of this case wherein the sale consideration amount was fixed at Rs. 68 lacs and accordingly, one sale agreement was initially executed by the respondent No.2 and thereafter the sale deed was executed after obtaining the sale permission from the department concerned. The entire sale consideration, amounting to Rs. 68 lacs was paid to the respondent No.2 and in that regard, he also issued the money receipt which is annexed along with the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after execution of the sale deed, when the petitioner visited the land in question for some construction, the informant/respondent No.2 and his daughter restrained him and also tried to assault him on which he earlier lodged an FIR, which has been registered as the Tezpur P.S. Case No.148/2025 and that has already been charge sheeted against the present informant/respondent No.2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a Title Suit was also instituted by the respondent No.2, wherein he made the present Page No.# 3/9 petitioner as a defendant along with the son of the informant as another defendant in the said Title Suit. In the said Title Suit the petitioner had also submitted his written statement bringing all the materials on record. The said Title Suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deed which was executed in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No.2/plaintiff. He further submitted that though the respondent No.2 is claiming that he gave signature for sale permission as his son was asked for financial help and to sale another plot of land in the Tezpur Town itself but he never put any signature nor applied for any sale permission for execution of the sale deed in respect of the disputed land. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that initially at the time of executing the agreement for sale, the respondent No.2 deliberately put the old dag and patta number and on the basis of which the sale permission was applied for but as there was difference of dag number, the earlier prayer for sale permission was rejected and thereafter getting the new dag number and patta number, the fresh permission for sale was obtained and accordingly, the sale deed was executed. He further submitted that the informant personally appeared in the office of the Sub-Registrar on two occasions, initially for sale permission and thereafter, at the time of registration of the sale deed and after execution of the sale deed only, the informant raised the issue and prayed for cancellation of the sale deed through the Title Suit which has already been instituted by him. 5. More so, the plaintiff never denied of receiving Rs.68 lacs as the sale consideration amount for the land in question and the only prayer made in the Title Suit is for cancellation of the sale deed. He further submitted that from the facts of the case, it is seen that basically it is a Civil Suit and there is no criminal liability against the present petitioner for continuation of a criminal proceeding Page No.# 4/9 against him. There may be fraud in connivance with the employees of the Sub- Registrar in executing the sale deed but the present petitioner is not at all involved in the said fraud and he is a genuine purchaser and purchased the plot of land by paying Rs.68 lacs to the respondent No.2/informant. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma submitted that it is a fit case wherein the FIR may be set aside and quashed in respect of the present petitioner. 6. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted from the statement made in the FIR itself, it is seen that the case is of civil in nature and hence, liable to be set aside and quashed. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S.N. Vijayalakshmi and others vs. State of Karnataka and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575 and basically emphasized on para 14 and 15 of the said judgment. 7. Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/the informant submitted in this regard that it is a case of cheating an old person of 80 years who was cheated by the present petitioner in connivance of his own son and the officials of the Sub-Registrar’s Office. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 never executed any sale deed nor he entered into any sale agreement for sale of the disputed land in favour of the present petitioner. However, it is a fact that he put some signatures on good faith which was produced before him by his son Anupam stating that for financial need he has to sale a plot of land which is located in the Tezpur Town itself. On good faith he put his signatures in the sale permission but thereafter he did not execute any sale deed in favour of the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that the said plot of land was kept for future of his daughter and thus Page No.# 5/9 the question of selling of the said property also does not arise. However, the respondent No.2 also instituted a civil suit for cancelation of the sale deed which was forged and fraudulently obtained by the petitioner in connivance with the officials of the Sub-Registrar’s Office and his son Anupam, for which he had already instituted at Title Suit but the said Title Suit is not in existence at present, as the same has already been dismissed for want of Section 80 CPC notice. It was the observation of the learned Trial Court that the Lat Mandal, who has also been impleaded as a party defendant in the said suit but before impleading him as a party, no notice under Section 80 of the CPC was issued, for which the Title Suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Further the respondent No.2 submitted that he never received any sale consideration amounting to Rs.68 lacs as claimed by the petitioner and he brought these materials in his Title Suit filed by him, wherein he prayed for cancellation of the sale deed. Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that the case is still under investigation and hence, he submitted that the quashing of the FIR against the present petitioner will cause prejudice to the respondent No.2, who was cheated by the petitioner and by his own son, in connivance with the officials of the Sub-Registrar’s Office. 8. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted in this regard that the police had seized some documents including the sale permission as well as the sale deed, wherein the joint photograph of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is available but due to non-availability of some technical facilities, the joint photograph though already sent to the FSL, but the report is not received as to whether any manipulation took place while producing or attaching the joint photographs in the sale deed/sale permission. More so, the mobile handsets which were seized in connection with the case have also sent Page No.# 6/9 for examination by the FSL but the report of the expert is still awaited and the investigation is still under process. However, the signatures which were put in the affidavit annexed along with the sale deed/sale permission are not the signatures of the respondent No.2 as per the handwriting expert, which has already been received by the I.O. during investigation. 9. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam further submitted that from the statement made by the Lat Mandal, it is also seen that the respondent No.2 was not present at the time of taking photographs over the disputed land, when he came there for measurement and taking joint photographs of both the seller and the buyer. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that the investigation is still under process and in the event the case is not proved against the present petitioner, there is probability of furnishing the final report against him but as the case is still under investigation, the FIR against the present petitioner may not be quashed at this stage. 10. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the scanned copy of the case diary and other annexure filed by the petitioner. 11. It is a case wherein the petitioner brought the allegation that after receiving the sale consideration amount in full and after executing the sale deed in his favour, the respondent No.2 denied of such execution and to harass the present petitioner had also instituted a Title Suit along with loding an FIR with some false and concocted allegations. Further it is the claim that prior to the lodging of the FIR by the respondent No.2, the petitioner had already lodged an FIR which has already been charge sheeted against the respondent No.2 and Page No.# 7/9 others. 12. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner in connivance with the son of the respondent No.2 and other officials of the Sub- Registry had fraudulently prepared a sale deed wherein the respondent No.2 never executed any sale deed in respect of the land in question. From the case diary, it reveals that the case is still under investigation and the disputed signatures on the affidavit were also sent for examination, which gave the negative result with a report that the signatures available in the affidavit annexed along with the sale permission/ sale deed is not the signature of the respondent No.2. Further, from the submission made by Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam and other materials in the case diary, it is also seen that the FSL report regarding the manipulation of the joint photographs of the seller and the buyer could not be ascertained by the FSL. But it is the admitted fact that one Title Suit was also instituted by the respondent No.2 seeking cancelation of the sale deed but subsequently the Title Suit was dismissed for want of Section 80 CPC notice. It may be the case that the petitioner is a genuine purchaser who claimed that he had already paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 68 lacs to the present petitioner but the disputed fact is that the respondent No.2/informant had claimed that he never executed sale deed/sale permission in favour of the present petitioner in respect of the disputed plot of land, which has been mentioned in the FIR as well as in the Title Suit. Thus, it cannot also be denied at this stage that there are ingredients of cheating which is still under investigation and the involvement of the present petitioner will come out only after the investigation of the case. But from the statement made by the Lat Mandal, it is seen that in absence of the respondent No.2 in the concerned land, the photographs were managed and it was assured Page No.# 8/9 by the co-accused Anupam that he will produce the joint photograph of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner at the time of applying for sale permission as well as in the registration of the sale deed. 13. Thus, prima facie it is seen that the joint photographs at the time of sale permission was obtained without physical presence of the respondent No.2 over the land in question. 14. It is a settled law and there numerous decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and specially in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it was observed as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases 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 channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation 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. (3) 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. (4) 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 Page No.# 9/9 Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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.” 15. But here in the instant case, it is seen that though there are some civil disputes between the parties, but the ingredients of cheating and other criminal offences cannot be denied at this stage, as the case is still under investigation. So, at present it cannot be held that the entire case exclusively civil in nature to quash the FIR against the present petitioner at this stage. 16. In view of above discussions, it is held that it is not a fit case to quash the FIR against the present petitioner at this stage by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS. 17. Accordingly, this criminal petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant