Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010047782025 2026:GAU-AS:8633 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./286/2025 MAHIBUL HOQUE @ MOHIBUL HOQUE S/O MD. SIRAJUL HAQUE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT LANKA ISLAM BASTI, WARD NO. 3, P.S. LANKA DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL-CHITOLI, P.S.BHAGOR, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:ANIL KUMAR GUPTA S/O BISWANATH PRASAD GUPTA R/O SAMAGURI BPCH SAMAGURI P.S. HOJAI DIST.NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78214 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR D J HALOI,MR Z RAHMAN,MR. S A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. P DAS (R-2),MS. M BHUYAN (R-2),MS. P BORAH (R-2),MR. M ALAM (R-2) Page No.# 2/12 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 16.06.2026. Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent No.1 and Ms. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mahibul Hoque @ Mohibul Hoque, praying for quashing of the impugned charge sheet No. 201/2024, dated 27.08.2024, arising out of Hojai P.S. Case No. 88/2024, under Section 419/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also quash the subsequent criminal proceeding in PRC Case No. 1117/2024 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, Assam. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case the basic allegation of the prosecution is that the present petitioner along with some others are practicing as Dentist without having the requisite qualification or degree. During the course of investigation, the present petitioner got arrested in connection with this case and he was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hojai. He further submitted that from the ground of arrest, it is also seen that various prescriptions and two numbers of seals have been seized from the possession of the present petitioner and some prescriptions prescribed to the patients have been recovered from the informant Page No.# 3/12 side. That apart, it is also alleged that during the investigation, it is learnt that the minimum qualification required to practice as a Dentist is the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) from any recognized University but after arrest of the present accused petitioner, it has come to the knowledge, while serving notice under Section 91 of the CrPC that no eligible degree is possessed by the present petitioner and he is a fake Dentist and thus, cheated many people by practicing as Dental Surgeon, which also caused injuries to a large number of patients. But it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is not a Dentist and he never practiced as a Dental Surgeon, rather he is a Dental Mechanic and had obtained his degree from the Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Science, Lucknow wherefrom he got the Diploma in Dental Mechanics Course. The present petitioner never practiced or issued any prescription etc. showing him as Dental Surgeon or Dentist. 4. From the letter pad which has been seized during investigation, it is seen that the name of the present petitioner has been written in the letter pad simply as Mohibul Hoque with his registration number as DM who is a mechanic of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge and working under Dr. Rano V. Thousen who has the BDS Degree and was practicing as a Dental Surgeon, wherein the present petitioner was simply working as a Dental Mechanic. In the seized letter pad also, the name of the present petitioner was not written as Dr. Mohibul Hoque and thus, he never represented himself as a Dentist or a person with BDS degree. 5. Further, Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Dental Council of India had given a certificate to the Principal of Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Science, Lucknow wherein it is Page No.# 4/12 stated that the Dental Mechanic course at the Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Science, Lucknow was recommended by the Council and the Council also recognized the Dental Mechanic Course with intake of 15 seats in respect of Dental Mechanic students of Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Science, Lucknow. Thus, there is also a letter from the Deputy Secretary of the Dental Council of India that such course of Dental Mechanic Course was offered and recognized by the said institute wherefrom the present petitioner got his Diploma in Dental Mechanic Course. He further submitted that the petitioner never cheated any person and he never practiced as a Dental Surgeon. Rather, the petitioner was simply working under Dr. Rano V. Thousen as Dental Mechanic, wherein his registration number was also mentioned. 6. But without going into those aspects of the case, the present accused petitioner got arrested in connection with this case and the case has also been charge sheeted againsthim, for which the criminal petition is to be instituted for quashing of the FIR, charge sheet as well as the criminal proceeding pending before the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a fit case where the entire proceeding as well as the FIR and the charge sheet can be quashed by invoking the inherent power of this Court as provided under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 7. Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent No.1 raised objection and submitted that the present petitioner was practicing as a Dental Surgeon and during investigation, it has come to the knowledge that the petitioner also used to give prescriptions to various persons while he was practicing and showed himself to be registered practitioner in Page No.# 5/12 Dentistry. Mr. Borthaur further submitted that during the inquiry, it has also come to the knowledge that the petitioner had no valid degree from any recognized University. Further the Assam State Dental Council had wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Hojai stating that on inquiry they have found that no such certificate was issued to the present petitioner and this course are not recognized by the Dental Council of India and hence, the present petitioner is ineligible to any kind of Dental Practice and necessary action should be taken at the earliest. Further, Dr. Rano V. Thousen has also stated in his statement that the present petitioner was working under him and was practicing at the relevant point of time of incident and it was not known to him that the present petitioner does not have any degree and on the basis of some fake certificates, he was practicing under him. 8. Further, Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted that the documents which have been annexed with the additional affidavit regarding the genuineness of the degree/diploma of the present petitioner, was not before the I.O. and those were not produced at the time of investigation to make any further investigation to that regard, which has been annexed with the petition, shown to be issued by the Dental Council of India stating that the Dental Mechanic course was offered and recognized by the Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Science, Lucknow. Further it is submitted by the learned Addl. P.P., Assam that after thorough investigation of this case, the charge sheet was submitted against the present petitioner finding prima facie materials against him and hence, it is not at all a fit case to pass any order of quashing by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. More so, the case is at the very initial stage and the charge is not yet framed and hence, the petitioner will get ample opportunity to pray for his discharge at the time of Page No.# 6/12 hearing on framing of charge. Mr. Borthakur accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that the petition may be dismissed. 9. Ms. M. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted in this regard that after the investigation, prima facie materials found against the present petitioner that he is practicing as a Dentist without having any recognized degree. However, the present petitioner will get the chance at the time of evidence as well as at the time of hearing on framing of charge and may pray for his discharge. But at this initial stage, the petition for quashing may not be entertained and she prayed for dismissal of the same. 10. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Trial Court record as well as other relevant documents filed along with the present criminal petition. 11. The present petition, praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the FIR and the charge sheet has been filed by the petitioner on the plea that the charge sheet has been filed by the I.O. without proper investigation of the case. The petitioner never practiced as a Dental Surgeon in any other clinic and on the basis of Diploma in Dental Mechanic, he only assisted Dr. Rano V. Thousen in his clinic and in the writing pad of the clinic also his name is mentioned as Mohibul Hoque along with his registration number and diploma but there is no mention that he is a Dental Surgeon or the abbreviation “Dr.” is also not written before his name. At the same time, it is also the plea of the present petition that he obtained a genuine Diploma in Dental Mechanic from the Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Science, Lucknow and on inquiry, a report was submitted by the Dental Page No.# 7/12 Council of India wherein it is specifically stated that the Dental Mechanic course was provided by the Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Science, Lucknow and thus, the Diploma obtained by the petitioner from the said Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Science, Lucknow is genuine diploma and on the basis of the said diploma, the present petitioner can assist any Dental Surgeon in Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge etc. 12. On perusal of the record and after hearing the submissions made by the Addl. P.P., Assam as well as by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, it reveals that during investigation it was found that the present petitioner was practicing as a Dental Surgeon and prescriptions were also provided to many patients to that regard. Further, the present petitioner without having any BDS degree, was practicing as a Dental Surgeon and the degree/diploma which is claimed to have been obtained by the present petitioner was also found to be not genuine during investigation. 13. So considering the prima facie materials against the present petitioner along with some others, the charge sheet has been filed by the I.O., after making thorough investigation to that regard. But the documents which have been produced through an additional affidavit by the petitioner, whereby it is stated that a report was submitted by the Dental Council of India stating that the Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Science, Lucknow is providing course in Dental Mechanics, was not produced before the I.O. and there was no such investigation to that regard as submitted by the learned Addl. P.P., Assam. Page No.# 8/12 14. But it is seen that prima facie sufficient materials found against the present petitioner, on the basis of which the charge sheet was filed against him along with others. Thus it is not a case that there is no prima facie case reveals against the present petitioner for quashing or setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR and the charge sheet. Further, the case is at the very initial stage and till date the charge is also not framed against the present petitioner and hence, he will get ample opportunity to place his defence at the time of hearing on framing of charge. 15. Further it is well settled that at the time of issuing process or taking cognizance, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegation made in the complaint or the evidence therein in support of the same and it is the duty of the Court only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds to proceeding against the accused. It is not the duty of any Court to ascertain what the outcome of the trial would be conviction or acquittal of the accused. If the Court has to look into the allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected in the course of investigation and also to consider whereby it prima facie discloses any offence committed by the accused. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 17, in Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 3662/2023 [Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana & Anr.] has held as under:- “17. This is a case where the charges have been framed and the accused are awaiting trial. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous (except to the extent we propose to mention before concluding our judgment) that allowing the trial to progress might cause a miscarriage of justice. This is also not an appropriate stage to delve deep into the records. It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, Page No.# 9/12 without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to quashing of a charge / proceedings either in exercise of jurisdiction under section 397, Cr. PC or section 482, Cr. PC or together, as the case may be, has engaged the attention of this Court many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the precedents on the point, the principles have been summarized by this Court succinctly. In Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra1, this Court laid down the following guiding principles: “27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. 27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused. 27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender. 27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose. 27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a ‘civil wrong’ with no ‘element of criminality’ and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine Page No.# 10/12 the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. 27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. 27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge. 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. *** 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.” 17. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690, also expressed the same view that at the time of issuing process or taking cognizance, the Magistrate is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The detail Page No.# 11/12 discussion of the merits or demerits of the case is not required at the time of issuance of process or taking cognizance. 18. In case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, in para 102 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that: “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 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 Page No.# 12/12 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.” 19. In the instant case, upon plain reading of the FIR itself, a prima facie case reveals against the petitioner and during investigation also sufficient materials have been collected by the I.O. and finding a prima facie case, the charge sheet is filed against the present petitioner were in it is alleged that the present petitioner along with some others had practiced as Dental Surgeon/Dentist without having requisite degree. Further, from the statement made by Dr. Rano V. Thousen also reveals that he was not aware about the degree of the petitioner who was working under him as a Dental Surgeon and thus, it cannot be held that there is no prima facie case against the present accused petitioner at the face value of the FIR, for quashing or setting aside the entire criminal proceeding instantly. 20. Considering all these aspects of the case and in view of discussions made above, this Court is of the opinion it is not at all a fit case to set aside and quashing of the impugned charge sheet No. 201/2024, dated 27.08.2024, arising out of Hojai P.S. Case No. 88/2024, under Section 419/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also quash the subsequent criminal proceeding in PRC Case No. 1117/2024 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, Assam. 21. Accordingly, this criminal petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant