Allowed

Shri Sunil Kumar Singha v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Nov 2025WP(C)/3224/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed CISF authorities to permit the petitioner to undergo mandatory training and consider him for confirmation, holding that the insistence on furnishing a charge sheet or final report from an FIR quashed by the Meghalaya High Court was uncalled for and contrary to law.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to CISF authorities to put the petitioner up for mandatory training and take steps for confirmation, without insisting on furnishing documents related to the quashed FIR.

Shri Sunil Kumar Singha Vs the Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010112572025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3224/2025

¶6

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGHA S/O. SHYAMENDRA SINGHA, PERMANENT R/O. DURGANAGAR VILLAGE, PART III, CACHAR, ASSAM- 788030.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFIARS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI- 110001.

¶10

2:CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (CISF)

¶11

REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CISF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI- 110003.

¶12

3:SENIOR COMMANDANT

¶13

CISF SECOND RB RANCHI NEAR TIRILL ASHRAM P.O. DHURWA DIST. RANCHI STATE- JHARKHAND- 834004.

¶14

4:PRINCIPAL CISF

¶15

MAHARANA PRATAP RECRUIT TRAINING CENTRE ALWAR RAJASTHAN301713.

¶16

5:DEPUTY COMMANDANT

¶17

TRAINEE KAUSUB MPRTC BEHROR RAJASTHAN

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. P AGARWAL, MS. S NATH

¶19

Page No.# 2/8

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. C K S BARUAH (C.G.C.)

¶21

Date of Judgment and Order : 11.11.2025

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶23

1. Heard Dr. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned CGC for the respondents.

¶24

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was appointed provisionally as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The said appointment was made pursuant to the selection process to which the petitioner had submitted his candidature in response to the recruitment proceedings undertaken by the CISF authorities. In connection with the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the petitioner was arrested in relation to a case registered pursuant to an FIR being Sadar P.S. Case No. 240(10) of 2021, under Sections 3(2)(a)(b) and 4(1) of the said Act. This information was duly disclosed by the petitioner in his application submitted before the CISF Authorities during the process of selection. Notwithstanding the petitioner was duly selected and provisionally appointed.

¶25

3. The petitioner approached the High Court of Meghalaya by filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC being Criminal Petition No.7 of 2022. This petition came to be taken up for hearing along with another petition filed by another accused person being Criminal Petition No.8 of 2022. Both these matters were taken up for hearing and vide order dated 22.08.2022 the Criminal Petitions were allowed. The Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya, upon

¶26

Page No.# 3/8

¶27

consideration of the matter, concluded that the FIR lodged against the petitioner did not disclose the commission of any offence. Consequently, the FIR and all related proceedings arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 240(10) of 2021, registered under Sections 3(2)(a)(b) and 4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, were set aside and quashed. However, the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court was restricted in its application only to the petitioner before the Court.

¶28

4. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the competent authorities and furnished a certified copy of the aforesaid order, requesting the respondents to permit him to undergo the mandatory training so that he may be confirmed in his service.

¶29

5. However, the respondents did not permit the petitioner to undergo the mandatory training on the ground that, as per the mandate of the 19^th Standing Screening Committee for examination of cases of candidates selected for appointment to various ranks in the CISF who have been involved in criminal cases in the past, the particulars of the FIR, the charge sheet/final report submitted and/or any other related orders and documents are required to be furnished.

¶30

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent authorities have insisted that the petitioner furnish these documents. Notwithstanding the fact that the Meghalaya High Court, by its judgment and order dated 22.08.2022, had quashed the FIR and all relevant proceedings in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Since the claims of the petitioner were not acceded to by the respondent authorities, the petitioner had initially approached the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya by filing W.P.(C) No. 130 of 2025. However,

¶31

Page No.# 4/8

¶32

as the petitioner is a permanent resident of Assam, District of Cachar, the said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn and a fresh writ petition has been filed before this Court being the present proceedings.

¶33

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, once the FIR and the related proceedings have been quashed, the respondents ought not to insist upon the petitioner furnishing the FIR, charge sheet, final report, or any other related documents.

¶34

8. Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned CGC for the respondents has contested the case of the petitioner by filing the affidavit-in-opposition.

¶35

9. It is submitted that, as per the standing orders of the 19^th Standing Screening Committee, the particulars of the case are ordinarily required. However, a perusal of the judgment reflects that Sadar P.S. Case No. 240(10) of 2021, registered under Sections 3(2)(a)(b)/4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the FIR filed therein, have been quashed only in respect of the petitioner. From the records it is evident that there are four accused persons including the writ petitioner against whom the FIR was filed.

¶36

10. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused.

¶37

11. From the pleadings before this Court it is seen that by judgment and order dated 22.08.2022 passed in Criminal Petition No.7 of 2022 and in Criminal Petition No.8 of 2022 the Meghalaya High Court had set aside and quashed the FIR and the related proceedings against the writ petitioner in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.240 (10) 2021 under Sections 3(2)(a)(b)/4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

¶38

Page No.# 5/8

¶39

12. It is also made clear in the said judgment and order that the investigation and proceeding only with regard to the writ petitioner before the Court was quashed. The other accused persons against whom the investigation and proceedings were initiated will be continued. Insofar as the Ministry advisories and notifications are concerned, in terms of the 19^th Standing Screening Committee for examination of cases of candidates selected for appointment to various ranks in the CISF who were involved in criminal cases in the past, the particulars of the cases filed against the petitioner, including the charge sheet/final report and other relevant documents are ordinarily required to be furnished for the purpose of confirmation in service. The repeated requests made by the petitioner were considered by the department; however, the petitioner was directed to furnish the particulars of the FIR and the charge sheet/final report in respect of Sadar P.S. Case No. 240(10) of 2021, registered under Sections 3(2)(a)(b)/4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. It is submitted that these records are stated to be not available with the CISF authorities.

¶40

13. A careful perusal of the judgment of the Meghalaya High Court dated 22.08.2022 passed in Crl. Petn. No.7 of 2022 along with Crl.Petn. No.8 of 2022, it is clear that the Meghalaya High Court had interfered with the FIR as well as the related proceedings in Sadar P.S. Case No.240 (10) 2021 under Sections 3(2)(a)(b)/4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 insofar as the writ petitioner and another is concerned. From the pleadings as well as the recital of the orders, it is clear that the FIR was lodged in respect of the four accused persons including the writ petitioner. The Meghalaya High Court upon considering the facts and circumstances before it proceeded to allow the criminal petition filed by setting aside and quashing the FIR and related

¶41

Page No.# 6/8

¶42

proceedings only in respect of the writ petitioner. Therefore, once an order of quashment is issued by the Court the existence of the FIR or related proceedings insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned are deemed to be nonexistence with effect from the date of such order of quashment is issued by the Court. From the records it is also seen that the copy of the FIR available with the petitioner was duly furnished to the CISF Authorities. The copy of the judgment passed by the Meghalaya High Court is also furnished.

¶43

14. The power of a High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC is an inherent power which the Court can use in matters of quashment of FIRs once the High Court is of the view that such powers are required to be used. The power under Section 482 Cr.PC is very wide and is ordinarily used very sparingly. It is akin to the power conferred on a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By order dated 22.08.2022, the High Court upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the materials placed before it considered it fit to interfere and set aside the FIR and the all consequential proceedings. No appeal has been preferred by the respondents against such an order. Consequently, the order of the High Court has attained finality whereby the FIR and all consequential proceedings in so far as the petitioners before the Court which included the present petitioner attained finality. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it’s stood on a date of passing of the order which has been quashed. The effect of the order of quashment passed by the High Court is that the FIR and the consequential proceedings which were initiated against the writ petitioner has been interfered with, set aside and the position prior to filing of the FIR was restored meaning thereby that it has to be accepted that there is no FIR or any consequential proceedings pending in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned notwithstanding the FIR and

¶44

Page No.# 7/8

¶45

consequential proceedings in respect of the other co-accused have not been interfered with and may have been continued to be carried on by the investigating authority. After the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Meghalaya High Court quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings, the investigating authority cannot proceed to investigate the matter against the writ petitioner unless subsequent FIRs have been lodged or subsequent orders have been passed by a competent Court for proceeding in some other connected matters against the writ petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner being no longer connected to the original FIR and the consequential proceedings continued pursuant to the same being quashed by the High Court of Meghalaya, there cannot be a burden saddled on the petitioner to procure and/or furnish the stage of investigation in respect of an FIR and investigation presently continued against other co-accused. The authorities may very well used their sources to procure such information if it is considered necessary. But pursuant to the order passed by the High Court of Meghalaya quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings, there is no complaint or any consequential proceeding pending against the writ petitioner in original form as no subsequent materials to the contrary are placed before this Court.

¶46

15. Under such circumstances, the High Court has invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC and passed orders setting aside and quashing the FIR and the related proceedings insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned; consequently, the insistence of a charge sheet/final report by the CISF Authority is totally uncalled for, as the same is opposed to the provisions of law. Where the FIR itself has been quashed, no further investigation in respect of the alleged offence can be initiated without either a formal complaint lodged by a complainant or any specific orders from the competent Court of criminal

¶47

Page No.# 8/8

¶48

jurisdiction furthermore, the respondents have not been able to place before the Court any evidence that the order passed by the Meghalaya High Court has been interfered with by a Higher Court.

¶49

16. Under such circumstances, it appears to the Court that the grounds for not confirming the writ petitioner and not putting him up for mandatory and regular training on the ground that the petitioner did not furnish the status report/charge sheet/final report in Sadar P.S. Case No.240(10) of 2021 is both contrary to the directions passed by the Meghalaya High Court as well as the provisions of law.

¶50

17. This Court therefore, consider it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith consider the case of the writ petitioner for putting up the petitioner for mandatory training and to take all the steps for confirmation of the petitioner subject to the petitioner being found fit and eligible for such confirmation. The insistence on the FIR and charge sheet/final report by the respondent authorities is totally uncalled for, and no further insistence on these reports will be made by said authorities.

¶51

18. This writ petition is accordingly, allowed and disposed of in terms of the above.

¶52

19. Interim order, if any stands merged.

¶53

20. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any is also dismissed.

¶54

Comparing Assistant

Shri Sunil Kumar Singha v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sunil Kumar Singha v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratneswar Bania Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sri Pranab Roy Medhi Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Amina Begum Vs Chandan Sarma and Anr.

The Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs M/S G D Engineering Construction

Afiya Begum Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sakuntala Das Vs the State of Assam