Abhijit Chutia and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sri Lukumoni Gogoi. Son of late Panindra Gogoi. Resident of Ward No.2, Milan Nagar, Dhemaji, P.O & P.S.- Dhemaji District- Dhemaji, Assam PIN – 787057.

¶33

Sri Kulai Gogoi. Son of late Tanka Bakal Resident of Derkhari, Dhemaji. P.O & P.S – Dhemaji. District – Dhemaji, Assam. PIN – 787057.

¶34

…….Opposite Parties

¶35

– B E F O R E –

¶36

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶37

Page 3 of 12

¶38

For the Petitioner(s)	:Mr. P.K.Munir, Advocate, in Criminal Petition No.944/2019 :Mr. D. Mahanta, Advocate in Criminal Petition No.1461/2019
For the Respondent(s)	:Mr. K.K. Parasar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 in Criminal Petition No.944/2019 and Criminal Petition No.1461/2019. :Mr. B.K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Petition No.944/2019 and Criminal Petition No.1461/2019.
Date of Hearing	: 20.03.2025.
Date of Judgment	: 20.03.2025.

¶39

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶40

Heard Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.944/2019; Mr. D. Mananta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1461/2019. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent in both the criminal petitions and Mr. B.K. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3 in both the criminal petitions.

¶41

2. Both the criminal petitions having arisen out of the same FIR, is taken up together for final disposal at the admission stage by this common judgment and order.

¶42

3. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973 for quashing of the FIR registered as Dhemaji

¶43

PS Case No.305/2019 under Sections

¶44

Page 4 of 12

¶45

120B/419/420/468/471 of IPC ([Corresponding G.R. Case No.786/2019(DMJ)].

¶46

4. The facts of the case is that the respondent no.2 and 3/ complainant has lodged an FIR dated 02.08.2019 before the jurisdictional police station alleging that the accused no.1/petitioner in criminal petition No.944/2019 had purchased a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha of 1^st class Basti land under Block No.2 of Dhemaji Nagar covered by Dag No.45 of Periodic Patta No.35 by fraudulent means and conspiracy.

¶47

5. It is further alleged that the said land is mutated in the names of the grandfather of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. Late Bhadreswar Chamua, late Tanka Bakal and one Anupama Gohain.

¶48

6. It is further alleged that the accused no.1 and 2 (petitioner no.1 and 2) in Criminal Petition No.944/2019 in connivance with accused Nos. 3 to 7 (Accused No.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) being the petitioner Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Criminal Petition No.944/2019 and accused no.6/petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1461/2019 with the aid of administrative machinery for personal gain along with Officers of Circle Office, Deputy Registrar, Revenue Branch of Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Dhemaji had forged the land documents and registered the deed.

¶49

7. It is further alleged that from the RTI reply, it has come out that late Tanka Bakal died on 23.10.1987. However, he has been shown alive on the affidavit dated 15.07.2014 i.e. NOC for the sale transaction in question.

¶50

5 of 12

¶51

Accordingly, a case has been registered under Sections 120B/419/420/468/471 of IPC against the petitioners.

¶52

8. Pertinent that, prior to filing the said FIR, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had earlier filed a complaint under Sections 420/468/471/34 of IPC on 07.09.2018 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji, which was registered as complaint case C.R. Case No.182/2018, however, the complaint case was not proceeded and later on the FIR was filed. It is in-fact submitted at the bar that the said complaint case was also withdrawn by the respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶53

9. Pursuant to the registration of the instant FIR, notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C has been issued to the petitioner no.5 for appearing before the jurisdictional Investigating Officer. Situated thus, the instant criminal petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR and the said notice dated 06.08.2019. In the instant criminal petitions, this Court at the time of issuance of notice, by order dated 19.08.2019 was pleased to stay the investigation in connection with the said FIR. Accordingly, the investigation remain stayed.

¶54

10. Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.944/2019 submits that the petitioner no.1 is the purchaser of the subject land and the land being in the name of one Anupama Gohain, no criminal action can be brought out against him.

¶55

11. He further submits that in good faith, he had purchased the land from the said Anupama Gohain. He

¶56

Page 6 of 12

¶57

further submits that Anupama Gohain is not named as an accused in the FIR.

¶58

12. He further submits that no criminal case is made out on the face of the FIR and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶59

13. He further submits that the rest of the petitioners being officers of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and Revenue Circle have nothing to do with the allegation brought out in the FIR and therefore, no criminal case is also made out against them.

¶60

14. Mr. D. Mananta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1461/2019 submits that the petitioner is the jurisdictional mondal and has nothing to do in the alleged sale transaction and therefore, the FIR warrants to quashed against the said petitioner.

¶61

15. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent submits that the allegation set out in the FIR clearly makes out a criminal case against the petitioners. 16. He further submits that the case diary called for by this Court earlier by order dated 08.11.2024 indicates that while the investigation was at an initial stage, the same had to be stopped in view of the stay order obtained by the petitioner from this Court.

¶62

17. He further submits that the RTI report available in the case diary indicates that the land is recorded in the name of Anupama Gohain before the Revenue Circle.

¶63

18. He further submits that as investigation is yet to be completed, the FIR in question ought not be quashed.

¶64

Page 7 of 12

¶65

19. Mr. B.K. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the offence is serious in nature and the allegation clearly makes out the offence under which the FIR has been registered and accordingly submits that no case for quashing of the FIR at this stage is made out.

¶66

20. I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for all the contending parties and have perused the material available on record including the case diary produced before this Court.

¶67

21. Apt to reproduce the FIR at the outset:-

¶68

To the Officer In-Charge

¶69

Dhemaji Police Station,

Dhemají.

Subject:- Ejahar

1. Informant:

i. Lukumoni Gogol, Son of late Panindra Gogoi, Resident of Ward No. 2, Milan Nagar, Phone- 6913715081

¶74

ii. Sri Kulai Gogoi, Son of late Tanka Bakal, Resident of Derkharia,

¶75

Both under District & Police Station: Dhemaji.

¶76

2. Accused persons:

¶77

i. Sri Abhijit Chutia, Son of late Jiten Chutia. Resident of Ward No. 2, Milan Nagar.

¶78

ii. Smti. Swarna Díhíngia, Wife of Kamal Dihingia, Resident of Amguri Ahom Gaon,

¶79

Page 8 of 12

¶80

Police Station: Sisibor Gaon District: Dhemaji, Assam.

¶81

iii. Sri Bhuban Dihingía, Son of Kamal Dihingia, Resident of Ward No. 1, Barpataria.

¶82

iv. Sri Gunin Gogoi, Son of late Bhadreswar Gogoi, Resident of Ward No. 1, Barpataria

¶83

v. Sri Ramen Buragohain, (mandol) Son of late Kameshwar Buragohain, Resident of Ward No. 2.

¶84

vi. Sri Bhola Tamuly, (mandol) Son of late Narakanta Tamuly Resident of Ward No. 2.

¶85

vii. Sri Gobin Saikia, Son of late Gopal Saikia Resident of Ward No. 4, Dhemaji

¶86

The informant respectfully submits that the accused No.1 has purchased a plot of land measuring 1Bigha of 1st Class Basti land, under Block No.2 of Dhemaji Nagar covered by Dag No. 45 of Periodic Patta No. 35 by fraudulent means and conspiracy. The above referred land is mutated in the names of grandfather of the informant, late Bhadreswar Chamua, father of witness No.1, late Tanka Bakal and one Anupama Gohain. The accused No.1 and 2 in connivance with accused No. 3 to 7 with the aid of administrative machinery for personal gain, along with the Officers of Circle Office, Deputy Registrar, Revenue Branch of Deputy Commissioner's Office, Dhemaji had forged the land documents and registered the deed, thereby violated the Rules and Regulations of the Department.

¶87

Unless there is help and co-ordination of the Circle Officer, Deputy Registrar of Revenue Branch of Deputy Commissioner's Office, Dhemaji, it would not

¶88

Page 9 of 12

¶89

have been possible on the part of the accused person to commit such scam.

¶90

In this regard is that it is revealed from the RTI that although the father of the witness No.1, died on 23 of October 1987, showing the signature of the person expired Tanka Bakal alive on the affidavit on 15th of July 2014, an unexpected incident had occurred. Unless the accused persons 3 to 7 would not have helped the accused person No. 1 and 2, they could have committed such crime.

¶91

The complainant in the meantime has come to know that in place of Anupama Gohain, wife of Sri Basanta Gohain, accused No. 2 has sold the land to accused No.1 by forging the signature of Anupama Gohain and the land documents too. Although it is shown that she is a resident of Gohain Gaon but there is no person by the name Anupama Gohain in that village.

¶92

The complainant could come to know from RTI made to Deputy Registrar's Office that in the Deed executing the sale of land by Anupama Gohain has been signed as Sri Anupama Gohain in page 1, 4 and 5 and in pages 2 and 3 as Sri Nupama Gohain.

¶93

The complainant is frustrated with the act of forgery and violation of laws by the most trusted Government Officials.

¶94

Therefore it is prayed that Your Honour shall investigate the matter and take necessary legal action against the accused persons.

¶95

Enclosures:

¶96

1. Copy of the certificate of the Gaon Burah.

¶97

Page 10 of 12

¶98

2. Copy of the death certificate of Tanka Bakal.

¶99

3. Copy of the Jamabandi showing names of late Bhadreswar Chamua, Tanka Bakal and Anupama Gohain.

¶100

4. Photos, Deed and finger prints obtained from the Deputy Registrar's Office.”

¶101

22. Reading of the instant FIR, it appears that it is specifically alleged that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in connivance with the remaining petitioners, who are the Officers of the Circle Office, Deputy Registrar, Revenue Branch of the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Dhemaji had forged the land document and registered the deed in question.

¶102

23. It further appears that it is alleged that on the face of such forged sale deed, petitioner no.1 had purchased the subject land. It further appears that the said land which was in the names of Grandfather of the respondent no.2 i.e. Late Bhadreswar Chamua , late Tanka Bakal and one Anupama Gohain has been shown to have sold to the petitioner no.1.

¶103

24. It is further alleged that on the date of sale transaction, Tanka Bakal was not alive as he died on 23.10.1987.

¶104

25. It is accordingly alleged that the aforesaid signature of Tanka Bakal is forged by the petitioner no.1 along with the help of other petitioners/co-accused.

¶105

26. Upon careful examination of the aforesaid averments, it appears that if the said averments are taken

¶106

Page 11 of 12

¶107

on the face value to be correct, criminal offence is clearly made out against the petitioners.

¶108

27. That apart, the investigation is at an initial stage. Hence, such investigation in relation to a FIR containing allegations constituting prima facie criminal offence cannot be scuttled at the outset.

¶109

28. That being so, this Court is of the unhesitant view that the petitioners have failed to make out any case whatsoever for quashing the FIR.

¶110

29. Having held so, these criminal petitions fails.

¶111

30. With the above observations and directions, both the criminal petitions stands dismissed.

¶112

31. Interim orders, if any, passed earlier, stands vacated.

¶113

JUDGE

¶114

Comparing Assistant