Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010093222026 2026:GAU-AS:9182 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./811/2026 BIDHAN BORA SON OF LATE SONTIRAM BORA, R/O GOLAGHAT TOWN, BENGENAKHOWA, P.O. AND P.S. GOLAGHAT, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785621. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:SRI GAUTAM CHANDRA BORA S/O SARAT CHANDRA BORA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 344 MOTHER TERESSA ROAD GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) AT HOME ASSAM PIN- 78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS A DAS, MS. P BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, D KHERKATARY (R-2),MR. M DUTTA (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 24.06.2026 Heard Ms. Anamika Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Bankim Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel representing Respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the proceedings of N.I. Case No.3402/2025 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat. 3. The Respondent No.2 filed the complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the present petitioner Bidhan Bora. In fact, two cheques, each worth Rs.10 lakhs were dishonoured by the Bank. The petitioner submits that he has already returned Rs.5 lakhs to the present Respondent No.2. The bank statements to that effect has also been filed. 4. Mr. Dutta has submitted that apart from the aforesaid two cheques, another cheque of Rs.10 lakhs was given by the petitioner to the Respondent No.2 and that cheque was also bounced. Mr. Dutta has submitted that the petitioner has paid Rs.5 lakh for the aforesaid cheque of Rs.10 lakhs and that is why the Respondent No.2 has not filed any case against the present petitioner for the said cheque. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 6. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR Page No.# 3/4 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads 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 channelised 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 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.” 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. Page No.# 4/4 7. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that there are several factual matters involved in this case and that can be decided by the trial court only. This is not a fit case for exercising inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 8. The criminal petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant