Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010270792025 2026:GAU-AS:7811 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1546/2025 SURAJ BHAN SINGH BHANDARI S/O MEHARIBAN SINGH BHANDARI, PERMANENT R/O H.NO. 333, SECTOR -2, TELIPARA, NAGINA, P.S- RAIPUR, DIST.- BIJNOR (UTTAR PRADESH), PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO. 47, SOUTH BANGALI BASTI, MAIDAMGAON, P.S.- BASISTHA DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:BHARAT HAZARIKA S/O SRI SARAT HAZARIKA R/O SALAL GAON P.O AND P.S- SOOTEA PIN- 784177 DIST.- BISWANATH ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SEKHAR, M DEKA,MR U S BORGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. T ALI (R-2),MR. M PATHAK (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 03.06.2026 [1] Heard Mr. R. Sekhar, the learned counsel for Page No.# 2/7 the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. M. Pathak, appearing for the respondent No. 2. [2] This criminal petition has been registered on filing a petition under Section 528 of BNSS by the petitioner, Sri Suraj Bhan Singh Bhandari, praying for quashing of the charge-sheet, filed in Sootea P.S. Case No. 17 / 2025, as well as the proceedings of PRC Case No. 158 / 2025, which is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biswanath Chariali, under Sections 111(3)/318, (2) / 316 (2) of BNS, 2023. [3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are that on 05.02.2025, one Bharat Hazarika, (respondent No. 2 herein) had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- Charge of Biswanath Chariali police station, inter alia, alleging that two months prior to filing of the FIR, two men from outside State came to his hotel and introduced themselves as representative of Capdiya Group and also informed him that they are looking for a suitable land for setting up a factory of their company in Sootea area. [4] The said youth identified themselves as Suraj Bhan Singh Bhandari, (present petitioner and one Lucky Singh). [5] It is further stated in the FIR that the first Page No.# 3/7 informant was willing to provide 25 Bighas of land which was in the name of his wife, for the aforesaid purpose and also made an oral agreement to sell the land to Suraj Bhan Singh Bhandari, for a consideration amount of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores only). Thereafter, it is alleged in the FIR that the present petitioner introduced the first informant to one Rahul Capdiya, who introduced himself as the owner of the Capdiya Group Company and this was done at two luxury hotels in Guwahati. [6] It is further alleged in the FIR that in the hotel Radisson Blu at Guwahati, the present petitioner lost about Rs. 90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs only) in gambling and requested the informant to lend him Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) so that he can recover the lost money and, accordingly, the first informant gave him the said money and as he was hoping the sale of his land to the petitioner so with an assurance that he will repay back the same money within three days, however, it is alleged that, thereafter, the petitioner did not return the said money and he stopped communicating with the informant and, accordingly, the FIR has been lodged. [7] Mr. R Sekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR or the charge sheet does not disclose any ingredient or offences under Page No.# 4/7 Sections 111(3)/318(2)/316(2), BNS 2023. [8] He submits that this is a simple and pure case of the petitioner failing to repay the loan within the time agreed between the parties. He, however, submits that the loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) taken by the petitioner from the first informant has already been repaid back and two agreements to that effect have also been executed by the respondent No. 2 (first informant) on 15.02.2025 and 15.03.2025 respectively. He submits that copies of the said agreement indicating repayment of loan to the respondent No. 2 are annexed, along with this criminal petition. He submits that this is a case where an attempt to criminalise a civil dispute has been made by the respondent No. 2 only with a view to pressurise the respondent No. 2 to repay the loan in the earliest. He submits that now since no outstanding due is there to be paid to the respondent the continuation of criminal case pending against the present petitioner would be an abuse of the process of court. [9] He submits that this is a fit case where inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 528 of BNSS may be involved to quash the proceedings of PRC Case No. 158 / 2025 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biswanath Chariali. [10] Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Page No.# 5/7 Prosecutor, though, fairly submits that on perusal of the FIR, it appears that the dispute between the parties are civil in nature, however, he submits that since the charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner may appear before the trial court and may detect the matter before the trial court. Hence, he opposes the quashing of the PRC Case No. 158 / 2025. [11] On the other hand, Mr. M. Pathak, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has fairly submitted that the respondent No. 2 has received the loan amount which was given to the present petitioner. However, he submits that since an offence under Section 318 (2) i.e., the offence of cheating has been committed in this case this is not a fit case for quashing of the proceeding of the PRC Case No. 158 /2025. [12] He submits that the respondent No. 2 was deceived by the petitioner to part with the money by playing a drama in the Radisson Blu Hotel and he parted with the money only with a hope that his land would be purchased by the petitioner. However the same was not done and as such this is a clear case of cheating within the meaning of Section 318 (2)/2 of the BNSS, 2026. [13] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. On bare perusal of the FIR, it narrated two separate incidents one Page No.# 6/7 relates to alleged oral agreement which was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 regarding sale of their land at a consideration amount of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores only) and the second part of the FIR narrates some facts which reveals that at Hotel Radisson Blu, the petitioner indulged in gambling and, accordingly, the respondent No. 2 lent the said money to the petitioner within 3(three) days. However, same was not paid back. Thus, on bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that it is a simple failure of the petitioner to repay back the loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the respondent No. 2 within the agreed period. However, it also appears that that, thereafter, the said amount has been repaid back and to that effect two agreements were executed by the respondent No. 2, i.e., on 15th February 2025 acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) against the said loan and the next agreement on 15th March, 2025 acknowledging the receipt of balance loan amount. [14] It appears that the charge sheet in this case has been filed on 30.04.2025 bearing charge sheet No. 35/25 dated 30.04.2025. Thus, the charge sheet has been filed after repayment of the loan amount and in addition to the said fact has also been made in the charge sheet itself. Page No.# 7/7 [15] Under such circumstances, this appears to be a case of belated repayment of loan by the present petitioner to the respondent No. 2 and nothing more than that. No ingredients of Section 318 (2)/ 316 (2) of BNSS, are revealed either from the FIR or from the charge sheet. Hence, this court is of considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceeding in PRC Case No. 158 / 2025, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biswanath Chariali would be an abuse of the process of court. As such, this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction by this court to quash the proceedings of PRC Case No. 158 / 2025, which this court, accordingly, does. [16] This criminal petition is, accordingly, allowed. [17] The proceeding of PRC Case No. 158/2025, are hereby quashed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant