Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010015122024 2026:GAU-AS:2000 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./93/2024 ISLAM ALI S/O LATE JABBAR ALI R/O VILL- AMBARI P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:HARLAL RAY S/O LATE SURINDRA RAY VILL- BAHBARI P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. TAMULPUR DIST. BAKSA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MR A HOSSAIN,MR. L MOHAN,MS F BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. B DAS (R-2),MR. S N ADHYAPAK (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 12.02.2026 Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. F. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. S. N. Adhyapak, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Page No.# 2/7 2. By this application filed under Section 482, read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.PC., read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 06.12.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa, Mushalpur, in PRC Case No. 513/2023, by which charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC. 3. The petitioner has also challenged the FIR dated 11.05.2023 in connection with Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 141 registered under Section 420 of the IPC as well as Charge Sheet, vide Charge Sheet No. 185/2023, has been submitted on 25.08.2023. 4. Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the instant FIR was lodged, a Deed of Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the informant on 20.08.2020, by which the informant had taken money to the tune of Rs. 20 Lakhs, as a loan from the petitioner, due to necessity of money, on the condition that he would return the said money within six months and if he does not pay the money, it was stipulated in the said Deed of Agreement that the petitioner can recover the money with the help of law. However, the informant did not return the money and, as such, the petitioner issued three legal notices, dated 25.02.2022, being the 1st notice, dated 04.07.2022, being the 2nd notice and dated 21.12.2022, being the 3rd notice. However, it is stated that the informant did not pay any heed to the said notices; the petitioner had to institute a money suit on 22.03.2023, being Money Suit No. 13/2023, which is pending disposal before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kamrup (Amingaon). Page No.# 3/7 5. Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant being unable to return the money and having faced with the money suit, as a counter-blast, had lodged the FIR on 11.05.2023, alleging inter-alia that the petitioner had taken Rs. 10 Lakh from him by promising to provide jobs to his daughters in Indian Railways. It is also alleged that they waited for a year, but the petitioner could not arrange any jobs neither could show any document to that effect and that later he stopped answering the calls of the informant. The informant further stated that he had to sale his agricultural land for the sake of his daughters and pay the money to the petitioner. 6. The police, after completion of the investigation, had submitted the charge sheet in respect of the aforesaid case on 25.08.2023 arraying the petitioner as an accused person. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 06.12.2023, charges were framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. 7. Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said FIR is nothing, but only to harass the petitioner, who had filed a civil suit against the informant for non-payment of his money and, as such, he has prayed that the said FIR as well as the subsequent proceeding may be quashed. 8. To substantiate his argument, Mr. Borbhuiya has placed reliance of few judgments, which are as follows:- (i) Prem Raj vs. Poonamma Menon and another, delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 9778/2018, wherein it was held Page No.# 4/7 that a criminal proceeding has been instituted against the appellant concerned in respect of same transactions, in which a decree from the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction was already passed. In the said case, since the subject matter was same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceeding. (ii) Naresh Kumar and another vs. State of Karnataka and another in SLP (Crl.) No. 1570/2021, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that criminal proceedings based on disputes of civil nature is amenable to quashing by the learned Court. (iii) Randheer Singh vs. State of UP and another in Crl. A. 932/2021, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1190/2021, by which the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that criminal proceeding based on civil disputes or civil transactions, can be quashed by the learned Court. (iv) Kamlesh Singh vs. State of UP and another in Application No. 14659 of 2024 , by which the Allahabad High Court had held that the ingredients of Section 420 has to be meted out in the FIR for sustenance of the same. 9. In view of the same, Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the instant FIR is connected with the civil suit that the petitioner has filed against the informant and, as such, by following the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the instant FIR may also be quashed. He has also submitted that in the FIR, it is clearly stipulated that the offence had taken Page No.# 5/7 place during the year 2019 and the FIR was lodged in the year 2023, after a lapse of more than 3 years, which, again, is not permissible under the law. 10. Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, on the other hand, submits that the FIR discloses a different cause of action and a civil suit filed by the petitioner against the informant was on a different cause of action and, as such, the transaction is not the same in which the FIR was lodged. He, as such, submits that due to the said fact, the FIR is not amenable for quashing. 11. Mr. S. N. Adhyapak, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also submitted similarly that only in rare cases, where FIR relates to the same civil dispute arisen between the parties, the same may be quashed. However, the same is not the case here and, as such, there cannot be any question of quashing the FIR. 12. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the records. 13. It is noticed that in the year 2020, the informant had taken a sum of Rs. 10 Lakh as loan from the petitioner due to financial needs and he promised that he would return it within six months and if he, as had stated in the Deed of Agreement clearly, failed to repay the said amount, the petitioner can take the course of law. 14. In view of the same, since the informant did not return the money, the petitioner had sent legal notices and when the informant also did not pay any Page No.# 6/7 heed to those legal notices, he instituted the money suit before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kamrup (Amingaon), for recovery of his money on 22.03.2022. It is clearly noticed that the said money was taken by the informant from the petitioner due to his financial needs and the case in respect of the said transaction is going on before the learned Court, where summons were issued to the defendants and where written statement was also filed by the defendants. It was an incident, which took place in the year 2020. However, the present FIR the quashing of which is prayed by the petitioner is in respect of an offence committed in the year 2019 and it also shows that there arose a different cause of action. The informant had clearly stated that he had given a sum of Rs. 20 Lakh by cash to the petitioner, who promised to provide jobs to his daughters in Indian Railways. 15. It is further stated in the FIR that the informant waited for a year to get the appointment, but nothing was done by the petitioner and that when he tried to contact him, the petitioner did not answer his calls and when he visited the house of the petitioner, the petitioner did not meet him. It was also averred that the informant had to sell his land for the sake of giving money to the petitioner for getting jobs for his daughters. It is revealed from the FIR that the same discloses a different cause of action altogether, which has no connection with the money suit filed by the petitioner. It has been held in Prem Raj (supra) that in case when the transaction is the same in respect of which a decree has been passed by the Civil Court, the FIR can be quashed. But, the transaction here is not the same. In the money suit, it is seen that the informant, out of financial needs, has taken the money from the petitioner and in the FIR, it is seen that the petitioner had taken money with the promise to give jobs to the Page No.# 7/7 daughters of the informant. As such, this Court does not deem it fit to quash the FIR or the criminal proceeding. 16. Resultantly, this criminal petition is dismissed and disposed of. 17. The conclusions in this order will not have any effect with the trial of the case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant