Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR and charge-sheet alleging a forged 1955 affidavit submitted for NRC inclusion. The court found prima facie material since the Magistrate court did not exist in 1955, and declined to quash.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010172492024
2025:GAU-AS:4281
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1075/2024
RANIBALA DEBNATH AND 5 ORS W/O LATE MURARI MAZUMDAR R/O LEDO BAZAR BASTI, P.O. AND P.S. MARGHERITA PIN NO. 786181
2: SMT. USHA DEBNATH W/O LATE BABUL DEBNATH R/O BAUUL HALL ROAD
NEAR POLO FIELD
P.O. AND P.S. MARGHERITA PIN NO. 786181
3: SRI SANTOSH DEBNATH S/O LATE NANDA DEBNATH R/O OLD COLONY MARGHERITA
P.O. AND P.S. MARGHERITA
PIN NO. 786181
4: SMTI.MUKTA MAZUMDAR W/O SRI SANKAR MAZUMDAR R/O LEDO TIKOK SETTLEMENT AREA
P.O. AND P.S. MARGHERITA PIN NO. 786181
5: SRI JOY DEBNATH S/O LATE MURARI DEBNATH R/O LEDO BAZAR BASTI P.O. AND P.S. MARGHERITA
Page No.# 2/7
PIN NO. 786181
6: KRISHNA DEBNATH SO LATE MURARI DEBNATH R/O LEDO BAZAR BASTI P.O. SALOGI P.S. MARGHERITA ALL OF THEM ARE WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN NO. 78618 VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CUM CRCR MARGHERITA REVENUE CIRCLE MARGHERITA P.O. MARGHERITA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786181 (INFORMANT OF FIR
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR, MR. B HUSSAIN,MS. M MALLIK
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, GOVT. ADVOCATE (R-2)
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 07-04-2025
Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent no.1.
2. This is an application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
Page No.# 3/7
setting aside and quashing of the FIR and the charge-sheet in connection with Margherita P.S. Case No. 138 of 2029 dated 07.05.2029 and the entire criminal proceeding pending before the learned JMFC, Margherita registered as G.R. No. 348 of 2019 u/s 467/471 and 34 IPC.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Talukdar that all the petitioners are citizens of India by birth and they are the permanent resident of district of Tinsukia. All the petitioners have submitted affidavit along with the copy of NOC, during the submission of the NOC form in the year 2019 only with a view to make it clear that the father of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 came from Bangladesh and started residing at Khelmati Basti, P.S. Margherita, District- Lakhimpur which is now declared as District- Tinsukia, Assam. Thus the father of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2, namely, Late Premananda Debnath and family members were residing permanently in the above mentioned address, that is the State of Assam. In the said affidavit the deponent stated that he has given up his right of citizenship of Pakistan and now is a bonafide Indian national, being a refugee. The said declaration was given by the deponent i.e. the predecessor of petitioner nos. 1 & 2 on 24th August, 1955 before the Magistrate, 1st Class at Margherita. But, an FIR was lodged by the Circle Officer-cum-CRCR, Margherita before OfficerIncharge, Margherita police station on 03.05.2019 stating that the accused Smt. Ranibala Debnath and others submitted a document which was signed by Magistrate, 1st Class, Margherita in the year 1955 for inclusion of their names in the National Register of Citizens (NRC). However, on enquiry about the documents by the Circle Officer, which was obtained from SDO (Civil), Margherita and then it revealed that Margherita Sub Division was established in the year 1980 and hence the affidavit sworn by the deponent/predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners is a forged document and on further clarification it
Page No.# 4/7
was seen that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court was established at Margherita only in the year 1998. In view of this the Circle Officer lodged an FIR against the present petitioners with the allegation that they have furnished documents only to enter their names in the NRC.
4. The petitioners were also arrested in connection with the case and subsequently they were released on bail and thereafter the charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioners u/s 467/471/341 IPC.
5. It is further stated that the names of the petitioners and their family members were entered in the voter list almost in every year as a citizens of India and they casted their votes accordingly. They are also taking all such privilege as an Indian citizen and at the time of filing the affidavit the forefathers of the present petitioners were in possession of land and it was submitted for the NRC purpose honestly and bonafidely only with a view that their father and forefather made a declaration expressing his desire to be a citizen of India from 1955 onwards. Thus, question of cheating, or making fraud or wrongfully dealing in illegal benefit against the law and procedure in force does not arise. It was further submitted by learned counsel Mr. Talukdar that by virtue of Assam Land Revenue Regulation, the Sub Divisional Officer or APRO
officers were deemed to be designated as a Magistrate, 1st Class and a person can sworn an affidavit before such authority in view of the prevailing facts and circumstances to meet the exigency. It is further submitted that the affidavit was sworn not by the present petitioners but by the forefathers and some of the petitioners were not even born at the time of swearing the affidavit in 1955 and as such they also do not have any correct information to this effect. But, without considering all those aspects of the case, the charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioners and the learned Trial Court below also took
Page No.# 5/7
cognizance against the present petitioners without even applying his mind and summonses were issued accordingly vide Order dated 11.07.2024.
6. Mr. Talukdar accordingly submitted that on the basis of an affidavit sworn by the forefathers of the petitioners, they cannot be made liable and they have not committed any such offence to file charge-sheet against the present petitioners u/s 467/471/34 IPC and they produced the document/affidavit before the authority of NRC only considering the fact that the said affidavit is a genuine one.
7. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Talukdar that it is a fit case wherein the FIR, Charge-Sheet as well as proceeding pending before the learned JMFC, Margherita can be set aside and quashed by invoking the power u/s 528 BNSS.
8. In this context, Mr. Handique, the learned Government Advocate submitted that from the FIR itself it is seen that the Circle Officer lodged the FIR only after making a preliminary enquiry about the genuineness of the document of the affidavit which was filed before the office of the NRC for inclusion of the names of the present petitioners. During enquiry it is found that the Margherita Court as well as the Sub-Divisional Office (Civil), Margherita was established only in the year 1980 and therefore the document which was produced before the Office of the NRC is suspected to be forged and the Circle Officer also obtained a clarification from Judicial Magistrate and it was confirmed that the SubDivisional Magistrate Court, Margherita was established only in the year 1998. He further submitted that from the FIR as well as from the affidavit which was shown to be sworn on 1955 was suspected as a forge document and on the basis of which the Investigating Officer had investigated the case and it was found that the said document was forged one which was not issued by the office of the Judicial Magistrate, Margherita in 1955. He further submitted that
Page No.# 6/7
the Court of JMFC and Judicial Magistrate was not in existence in 1955 where it was shown to be executed. He further submitted that the Court of SDO (Civil) was also established only in the year 1980 and the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate was established only in the year 1998 and thus the Court which was not even in existence cannot issue such document/affidavit in the year 1955.
9. Mr. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted in this regard that there was a prima facie material against the present accused/petitioners and on the basis of which the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was accordingly filed against the present petitioners. He further submitted that in the year 1980 only the Court of SDO (Civil) was established and thus prima facie it can be held that the document which was purported to be issued in the year 1955 is not a genuine document. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the State respondent raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case for quashing of the FIR, the charge-sheet as well as the criminal proceedings by exercising the power u/s 528 BNSS.
10. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the annexures filed along with the petition as well as scanned copy of the case record. It is seen that on the basis of the FIR lodged by the Circle Officer, Margherita Revenue Circle the case was investigated and prima facie the charge-sheet was accordingly filed. The learned JMFC also finding prima facie materials took cognizance against the present accused/petitioners and summonses were issued. From the available documents and annexures it is
seen that admittedly the Court of Magistrate, 1st Class was not available in the year 1955 and the Sub-Divisional Office (Civil), Margherita was established only in the year 1980. It is a fact that at the time of non-existence of the Judicial
Page No.# 7/7
Magistrate, 1st Class the affidavit etc. were shown to be sworn before the SubDivisional Magistrate. As per allegation and as per the enquiry report the Office of the Sub-Divisional Court (Civil) was not even existent in the year 1955 when the affidavit was sworn to be executed before the said Court. More so, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class also was in existence or/established fully in the year 1998. and during trial the petitioners will get an opportunity to contest the case and to establish that they furnished the documents before the Office of the NRC only with a bonafide belief that the affidavit was rightly sworn before the learned Magistrate in the year 1955. But, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, I do not find it a fit case to set aside and quash the FIR dated 03.05.2019, Charge Sheet No. 162/2023 as well as the G.R. Case No. 348/2019 and the entire criminal proceedings pending before the learned JMFC by invoking the power u/s 528 BNSS.
11. In view of this, the present petition stands dismissed and disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings for forgery of a 1955 affidavit filed for NRC inclusion could be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ranibala Debnath and 5 others
The State of Assam
The Circle Officer cum CRCR, Margherita Revenue Circle
Mitali Thakuria
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
